Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill
	 — 
	Order for Second Reading read.

Mark Lazarowicz: I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
	I shall begin by declaring an interest. The Sustainable Energy Partnership has provided me with support in the preparation and development of the Bill. I also thank the 40 or more organisations, too numerous to name, that have given their backing to the Bill.
	Hon. Members across the House will know that climate change is probably the biggest issue we face in the world today. I do not propose to repeat the arguments and facts that are well known to Members across the Chamber. Although most Members and, increasingly, the general public recognise the extent of the problem we face in tackling climate change and many want to do something about it, I have often found that there is increasing defeatism about climate change precisely because it is such a big issue. People sometimes feel resigned to the idea that things will get worse and believe that as individuals they can do little about it. It is important to show them that they can do something and that, although it is essential to get action from Governments and at an international level, individuals can do something to help tackle climate change.
	My Bill seeks to link the action taken by the national Government and at an international level with the actions that can be taken by individual citizens—measures that, taken together, can make a significant contribution to reducing emissions and tackling climate change. The Bill is basically about seeking to engage and recruit the public—individuals, families and communities—in that effort.

Robert Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so soon. Does he agree that local authorities have a vital role to play? Some of them, including, I am sorry to say, my own district council, think that if there is a climate change problem, it has to do with sunspots and nothing to do with the intervention of man. Therefore, they are reluctant to support the Bill, a consequence of which will be increased expenditure by local councils. What would he say to my district council? How could he prove to it that there is a link, which it is not sure about, between mankind's intervention, rather than sunspots, and the climate change problem?

Mark Lazarowicz: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman can persuade his district council about the reality more easily than I can, but my Bill will certainly place responsibilities on local authorities, so that they cannot escape from recognising that link and cannot fail to do something about it.

Philip Hollobone: Is not part of the problem with the climate change debate that those of us who want action to be taken on environmental issues are depressed by the Government's record, because the fact is that carbon dioxide emissions were falling before they came to power and have been rising since?

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman makes a party political point, which he is entitled to do. I think that this Government's record in seeking to tackle climate change has been excellent, but I want us to work on an all-party basis on practical issues that can take the issue forward. I suggest that he concentrate on that aspect of the Bill today, rather than on other agendas.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the almost unique aspect of micro-generation is that it can give individuals responsibility to produce energy in their own homes? For example, they can have photovoltaic cells producing energy on the roof of their house. Virtually all traditional forms of energy production rely on large power stations many miles away from people's homes.

Mark Lazarowicz: Indeed. Had I waited a little longer to give way to my hon. Friend, I might have come to that particular section of my speech, which will now be somewhat shorter as a result. However, he makes a valuable point. Micro-generation, which is at the heart of the Bill, is simply the generation of energy—heat or   electricity—by individual householders or small groups of householders. That can of course include photovoltaic installations, micro-combined heat and power systems, micro-wind, heat pumps, solar thermal systems, fuel cells and micro-hydro systems. A range of systems can be installed in individual homes making it possible for individual householders or groups of householders to generate their own energy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mark Lazarowicz: I shall give way in a second if my hon. Friends will allow me to make a little progress.
	The key point to bear in mind is that micro-generation has immense potential. It is not an activity that needs to be restricted to the select few or that applies only to certain parts of the country. The estimates from the most reputable scientific sources suggest that between 6 million and 10 million homes across the UK could be involved in micro-generation of some form. Clearly, for some communities and households, some technologies will be better than others, but if we look at the whole package, micro-generation can make a major contribution to the country's energy needs.

Joan Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the housing market renewal programme taking place throughout the country gives the Government a wonderful opportunity to ensure that what he is talking about is at the heart of new building, and the building of sustainable communities?

Mark Lazarowicz: I agree absolutely. One of the advantages of micro-generation is that as well as contributing to the country's energy needs, it can help to tackle fuel poverty. If houses can produce their own energy and make maximum use of energy efficiency and energy conservation devices, people on low incomes will gain more from that. Particularly in rural areas, where houses are not linked to the grid, micro-generation has a real part to play—although that also applies to the larger urban areas, of course.

Eric Forth: It would be helpful for the House if the hon. Gentleman could put this in context. Has he made any estimate of the contribution that micro-generation, even at the top end of his estimate—the 10 million homes—would make to total energy generation in this country? That figure would help us to put the idea in perspective.

Mark Lazarowicz: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are a whole range of estimates, but it has been suggested that the proportion could be as high as 10 per cent. I am not sure whether I would go as far as that, but micro-generation can certainly make a substantial contribution to the country's energy needs.

Janet Dean: My hon. Friend mentioned rural areas. Does he see a role for parish and town councils in bringing communities together to try to develop micro-generation schemes?

Mark Lazarowicz: Indeed I do. Part of my Bill deals with the promotion of what is described as "community energy". I shall come to that part later, and I hope that it will meet some of my hon. Friend's concerns.
	Micro-generation and micro-power types of technology have clear economic and environmental advantages, but the market is small, which makes it less viable than it should be for households that wish to take advantage of that technology to do so, and for companies to invest in the technology necessary to manufacture micro-power units. The problem is that the installation costs of micro-generation can be quite high, and the payback period is relatively long. That makes micro-generation a niche product, available only to the better-off—although even now, prices are coming down.
	Opinion across the industry and in the non-governmental organisations is that we need to get into a virtuous circle, in which prices come down so that the market increases in size, which would lead to further reductions in the price of the product so that we can really take advantage of the potential of micro-generation.

David Kidney: My hon. Friend mentioned companies and manufacturing. Does he agree that the Bill gives us the opportunity to come to the aid of a beleaguered manufacturing industry? Renewable energy technologies are labour-intensive, and international concern about climate change would provide huge opportunities for export markets, too.

Mark Lazarowicz: Absolutely. One of the things that I have found out in working on the Bill, as I have developed my own research and organisations have contacted me, is how extensive employment in the renewables sector is already. I suspect that if they inquire, most Members will find that tens or even hundreds of people in their constituency are already involved in the industry in some way. The reality is now large, and the potential is even larger.

Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this country will have the moral authority to tackle India and China and encourage them to reduce their carbon emissions only if we can turn round the situation here? Does he agree that clause 2 of his Bill is a good way of bringing that about?

Mark Lazarowicz: I certainly support clause 2 of my Bill! Yes, we must ensure that we meet our international targets if we are to call on others to do the same. The hon. Gentleman also highlights another opportunity—the fact that there is a market out there which could be immense, and which we could take advantage of if we had a strong domestic micro-generation market on which we could build export potential.
	We need a kick-start for the micro-generation industry in the United Kingdom. That is an important feature of my Bill, as well as of another Bill to be debated later; I must not speak about it at this stage, but it too will have a bearing on this issue. The essential element in my Bill is that by setting targets to encourage the installation of micro-generation we would give a clear signal to the market and the industry that the Government are serious about micro-generation. The industry would then put in the investment to allow prices to come down, and create the virtuous circle of price reduction and greater take-up. The Government have already made a good start, with a micro-generation consultation, and the Bill will allow us to build on that in the most effective way.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he has been very generous, and I agree with what he is saying. In my part of the world, one of the schemes that I have strongly supported is hydroelectric micro-generation. However, some of the people who have brought water mills into use and contribute a very small amount of energy to the grid, as well as supplying their own needs, are now concerned that they might be assessed for non-domestic rates on that small production. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister could put their minds at rest by clearly stating that such schemes will not be assessed for business rates, so that there will not be a further disincentive to installing them?

Mark Lazarowicz: I have heard of that concern, and it would be extremely unfortunate if there were a disincentive to micro-generation as a result of that feature of the local rating system.
	That leads me to the next point about micro-generation in the Bill. One of the measures is designed to make it easier for householders and groups of householders who produce electricity by micro-generation to sell to National Grid. This is not just a question of individuals' own energy needs; in some cases, surplus energy will be produced. That can be sold on, which makes the cost of installation more viable. Clearly, it is important that there should not be disincentives such as the hon. Gentleman described. Some electricity is already being sold back to the grid, but I understand that there are difficulties in certain areas, and the Bill will address those.

David Lepper: I represent a constituency where there is a great deal of interest in renewable energy, but many of my constituents who are most interested in it live in conservation areas. My hon. Friend has talked about the importance of households and groups of households taking forward what is proposed. Does he agree that it is important that the Minister for Energy, who is on the Front Bench at the moment, should liaise with the Minister for Housing and Planning, who has been in the Chamber this morning already, to examine the regulations that may be putting obstacles in the way of the developments that he suggests?

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I am sure that it has been heard by the Ministers responsible.

Nick Hurd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Bill. Does he acknowledge that there is a structural problem with the payback on investment in micro-generation, in that we have a habit of moving home regularly? Will he share with the House any views that he might have on the level of Government support required to bring the costs of the technology down to offset that factor?

Mark Lazarowicz: I shall have to decline the hon. Gentleman's invitation, because to do so would take more time than I would want to spend on that subject today. It probably relates to a Bill to be dealt with later.
	The key point of my Bill is to bring about reductions in the price of the technology by promoting the mass market. Many measures need to be brought into play to allow micro-generation to take off. My Bill concentrates on the target, the link to the grid and the ability of those who make use of micro-generation to get green energy certificates, which are especially important in making the installation of the technology viable for households for which it would not otherwise be viable.

Peter Ainsworth: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important Bill before the House. Does he agree that, if micro-renewables are to make the contribution that we all want, it is important to have stability in respect of a Government framework behind them and consistency of policy and funding? What does the hon. Gentleman make of the recent changes announced by the Department of Trade and Industry towards the funding of micro-renewables and the time scale over which it is likely to be provided?

Mark Lazarowicz: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that consistency is important, but if he does not mind, I shall have to decline his invitation to comment on areas of policy that, though relevant to my Bill, would take us down a much longer road. I agree, however, that consistency is important and having targets allows us to show the industry and consumers that we have a clear strategy over a period of time.

Andrew Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to practical action on the ground, cities are very much centre stage? Does he welcome the Mayor of London's initiative to launch a dedicated London climate change agency, which will work in partnership with the private sector to tackle greenhouse gas emissions in London? That is particularly important for the Olympics in 2012, as we want to ensure that the project is sustainable both environmentally and socially.

Mark Lazarowicz: Indeed, the Mayor's initiative is remarkable and provides lessons for other cities and communities throughout the UK. It is important, however, to ensure that opportunities are available for all types of communities—from rural areas to urban areas and the largest cities. My Bill is thus designed to encourage the development of community schemes whereby local communities can set up their own renewable energy systems that give them a stake in local energy projects. Such projects are more likely to be accepted than if they are viewed as being imposed on communities from outside. Communities can sometimes be unhappy about certain aspects of those developments.

Andrew Stunell: I strongly support the Bill, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that this is not a London or city-centric issue. To my knowledge, some 21 local authorities—including my own of Stockport, which is also represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter)—have expressed strong support for the Bill. There is considerable support for the Bill among the local government community as well as here in Parliament.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for his support. I am pleased that local authorities throughout the UK have contacted me to express their support for my Bill.

David Kidney: My hon. Friend was dealing with community energy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) said, the Bill provides a good opportunity for rural areas that are not on the gas mains to avoid being compelled to buy oil for their heating. They will now have access to renewable energy for their community energy systems.

Mark Lazarowicz: That provides a good example. One of the problems in the UK is that although we have some examples of community ownership, they are, by and large, fairly limited and on a small scale.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mark Lazarowicz: Perhaps I should give way to the whole Liberal Democrat party.

Robert Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on introducing the Bill. It represents an important step in ensuring that we try to meet our Kyoto commitments. He was just talking about the benefits for rural areas and earlier he mentioned the economic and employment benefits of promoting the renewable sector. I particularly welcome the Bill's commitment to renewable heat. If we can promote renewable heat in rural areas, it will also provide an outlet for farming communities that are having to make a transition in their economic activities. It is also important for the forestry industry, which faces the economic problem of what to do with the "thinnings". That problem is undermining the good management of the forestry, so I greatly welcome the hon. Gentleman's attempts to promote renewable heat.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. One of the clauses indeed enables the Secretary of State to introduce a renewable heat obligation. The hon. Gentleman is right about the immense potential of renewable heat in rural as well as urban areas. It can play an important role in combined heat and power, for example. Given the very welcome renewable fuel obligation announced by the Government yesterday, it is appropriate for a renewable heat obligation to be the third pillar of the package. It could make a huge difference.

Alistair Carmichael: I particularly commend the hon. Gentleman for his words on community ownership and community benefit. He will be aware of the Viking Energy project in Shetland, which is a significant community development of significant scale. However, it risks being thwarted by the transmission charging regime operated by Ofgem. The cap in energy legislation is not proving to be adequate in practice. The Bill could be a vehicle for an amendment to the Energy Act 2004. Has the hon. Gentleman heard from the Government whether they would be prepared to support such an amendment?

Mark Lazarowicz: It is for the Minister to speak for the Government, but I am pleased to say that the Department has approached me about using the Bill as a vehicle for dealing with part of that problem. I hope that it will prove possible to do so. The issue is important not just to the hon. Gentleman's community, but to the whole of the UK. Evidence shows that the Scottish islands could contribute as much as 1 per cent. of the country's entire energy needs if the renewable sector fully reached its potential.

Linda Gilroy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing his Bill before Parliament. On the renewable energy clauses, has he made any assessment of the contribution that biomass could make to increasing the market for bioethanol products in this country? Our position on that is very low compared with the United States, for example. Clearly, another element of the Bill can contribute to the diversification of work available in rural areas.

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend is right. That is why the proposal to make progress on renewable heat is particularly important.

Richard Ottaway: I am in my place to support the hon. Gentleman's Bill today. He is discussing the renewable heat obligation, which is by far the most controversial and most complex aspect of the Bill. Progress cannot possibly be made without Government support. Has the hon. Gentleman heard from the Department of Trade and Industry about its attitude to that particular measure?

Mark Lazarowicz: I have had an indication, but let us see what the Minister says about that. The debate about how best to progress renewable heat obligations is still ongoing.

John Hemming: One difficulty is the fact that the Inland Revenue frequently seeks additional sources of revenue. From time to time I have heard about the possibility of the Revenue obtaining national non-domestic rates from domestic micro-generation. I note that one clause deals with fiscal incentives, but one hopes that the Bill will also deal with preventing fiscal disincentives, perhaps looking for a threshold level at which generation rates become free.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. If I can make some progress, I may be able to say a few words about that part of the Bill later.
	I want to deal with community ownership. The United Kingdom has an opportunity to take advantage of developments that are already evident in other parts of Europe. In Denmark, for example, 50 per cent. of the country's wind power capacity is owned by individuals or co-operatives. Similarly large schemes exist in Austria and Germany—and even in the US. We should try to promote community energy here in the UK.
	As I said in reply to earlier interventions, the Bill is designed to promote renewable heat, but it also recognises that micro-generation must be part of a wider agenda and overall Government policy. That is why the Bill has 12 important clauses that place a duty on the Government. The first relates to maximising the use of fiscal incentives. We have already seen a number of valuable measures in that respect, but a whole array of measures could further encourage energy efficiency and micro-generation. They include council tax rebates for householders who install energy-saving devices, stamp duty rebates for house purchasers, measures to encourage the purchase of energy conservation materials for houses, and so forth. Many measures could be taken and it is important to examine them collectively across government. That is what the Bill is designed to do.

John Barrett: The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way and I am delighted to be able to support his Bill today. Does he agree that it is important to give equal emphasis at local and national level to measures to introduce energy efficiency savings? Discussing different methods of generating power is not good enough on its own; we must also place great stress on implementing measures to save energy.

Mark Lazarowicz: Absolutely—the two go together. We could make immense savings through energy efficiency alone, and if we combine it with micro- generation, we could make a real impact on the country's energy needs and consumption, and on tackling our climate change targets.

Emily Thornberry: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in this debate, and may I add my voice to those who welcome the introduction of this Bill? We hope that it has an easy passage. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although climate change is one of the biggest challenges faced by our generation, too many people feel that there is little that they can do as individuals? Micro-generation is exactly the sort of thing that people can do, and it is encouraging to hear that in Denmark, 50 per cent. of wind generation is created by people's own individual wind plants.

Mark Lazarowicz: I agree absolutely. In developing this Bill, I discovered that there is a real interest across the country in these issues. People want us to facilitate such developments.

Philip Hollobone: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. One of the big attractions of micro-generation is that, because electricity generation takes place far closer to where the electricity is actually used, it automatically improves efficiency of energy delivery. Micro-generation would reduce the transmission and distribution losses that this country currently suffers from as a result of most of our electricity being generated away from big population centres.

Mark Lazarowicz: I agree entirely.

Meg Hillier: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him on introducing this important Bill. The majority of my constituents live in council or social housing, and although they would very much welcome the benefit to their pocket of reduced energy costs, they are not in control of such matters. What discussions has he had with the Minister for Housing and Planning on how to support social landlords and councils in providing such facilities in council housing?

Mark Lazarowicz: The detail on this subject is probably more a matter for my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who seeks to introduce a Bill on related matters later today. However, in promoting not only national but local authority energy conservation targets, my Bill would encourage discussion with local communities about how best to meet those targets and to promote micro-generation. Such developments can benefit communities of all types throughout the country.

Oliver Letwin: rose—

Mark Lazarowicz: I want to move on, but before I do so I give way to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that one of the most encouraging things about this morning's debate so far is the sign that not only the shadow Minister for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), and I, on behalf of the Opposition, but the Liberal Democrats and, it appears, the Government, support the general thrust of his Bill? Does he also agree that this should be the harbinger of things to come—a tripartite effort to advance the climate change agenda, of which his Bill could be the signal beginning?

Mark Lazarowicz: The more of a genuine consensus that we can achieve on the way forward—not only in Parliament, but among the public and communities as a whole—the better. I look forward to the Bill's proceeding through the House.

David Lepper: In the spirit of the comments made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), will my hon. Friend also pay tribute to the role of the Co-operative party, the co-operative movement and Labour/Co-operative MPs in supporting his Bill and the principles behind it?

Mark Lazarowicz: As a Labour/Co-operative MP, I am certainly happy to pay tribute to us all individually, and to the Co-operative movement's support for the promotion of community energy, which is a key aspect of this Bill.
	As I said at the beginning, this is an issue that requires not only individual and community action, but national and international action. An important part of this Bill is the clause requiring an annual report on the how the UK is performing in meeting its greenhouse gas emission targets; on areas where we have, and have not, been successful; and on what we are doing to ensure that we meet our climate change targets. We need to ensure that this issue is at the centre of Government policy, which is why we must also see micro-generation in the context of the contribution that it can make to the country's overall energy needs.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I, too, welcome this Bill, especially its emphasis on reporting on targets. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be beneficial if, as part of corporate responsibility reporting, organisations reported how much of their energy is generated through micro-generation?

Mark Lazarowicz: That is an interesting suggestion. Some companies already do so, and such an idea is worthy of consideration by other companies as well.

Bernard Jenkin: I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting his Bill before the House; he is demonstrating that it is great fun to introduce a Bill in the House of Commons. Should not Government Departments also be subject to the injunctions just described? Should they not have an obligation to generate a certain amount of energy from renewable sources? Is such an idea included in his Bill?

Mark Lazarowicz: This is only a humble Back-Bench private Member's Bill, and there are limits to how much I can achieve with it; but yes, it has certainly been fun introducing a Bill. I am not sure that Front Benchers always regard the introduction of Bills as fun, but I have certainly enjoyed introducing mine.
	I have been genuinely surprised at the level of support that the Bill has received throughout the country. There is a real wish on the public's part for the Government to facilitate the development of such activities. People want to contribute to tackling climate change, which is why it is important that the Bill proceeds and emerges at the end of the process—assuming that a Second Reading is granted—in sufficiently comprehensive a form to ensure that it makes a real difference.
	I have had some productive discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Minister for Energy. I shall hear in due course what aspects of the Bill the Government are happy with; there are doubtless other aspects about which they have reservations. I certainly look forward to working with them to try to get a Bill that reflects my aspirations, and the aspirations of those who sponsored it. I hope that during its subsequent stages—if it gets that far—we will recognise that the public genuinely want us to allow them to make this contribution to tackling climate change. It is important that we do not let them down—either today or during the Bill's future stages.

Dawn Butler: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill. Does he agree that there is growing interest, especially among young people, in issues such as micro-generation, and that we must ensure that such technology is produced on a larger scale and more cheaply, so that low-income families can afford to use it and to contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions?

Mark Lazarowicz: Indeed. The interesting suggestion has been made that every school in the country's having a micro-generation device would not only contribute to their energy needs, but would in itself be a good educational tool.

David Chaytor: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this Bill. I want to point out that my local authority was the first in the United Kingdom to publish its own climate change strategy. My colleagues in, and the officers and members of, Bury metropolitan district council will be delighted to see the Bill before the House today. Clause 1 uses the phrase "viable . . . energy supply". The Government normally use the phrase "security of energy supply". Does my hon. Friend agree that the advantage of micro-generation is that it enhances our security in terms not only of self-sufficiency, but of safety? In the world post-9/11, can he envisage any circumstances in which a terrorist organisation would be interested in mounting an attack on a wind turbine?

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point.

Andrew Love: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I, too, welcome his Bill. There appears to be an emerging consensus across the House. It will be interesting to see whether the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) enters into that consensus.

Eric Forth: No.

Andrew Love: I thought that might be the answer.
	I am interested in my hon. Friend's speech—whenever he gets the chance to make it. He has talked about targets and encouragement: we definitely need the Government to move on research into renewable resources, but there is no mention of that in the Bill. Is that research an important consideration?

Mark Lazarowicz: It is, indeed. Obviously, the Bill as it stands will encourage research, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is a private Member's Bill and there was only so much that I could cover. I resisted the temptation to set out my personal energy policy on every aspect of Government activity, trying to restrict the Bill to some achievable goals.

Norman Lamb: In response to an earlier intervention, the hon. Gentleman made an important point about the role that schools can play. Is he as depressed as I am at the Government announcement on 2 November that the single source of grant from the Department of Trade and Industry for school and other community projects has come to an end? The replacement for photovoltaic and clear skies programmes will commit less money per year than they did. Are the Government not moving in the wrong direction?

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, understand that I want to concentrate on the positive things that can be achieved from the Bill, but he has made his point.

Theresa Villiers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being generous in giving way to me, having given way to so many hon. Members. Does he agree that setting clear targets for increased take-up of micro-generation will create the conditions in which a market can develop in that technology? Hopefully, that will bring prices down and make the technology more available to anyone who wants to be involved in cutting carbon emissions and tackling climate change.

Mark Lazarowicz: Absolutely. That takes me back to where I was a little while ago before I received a few more interventions than I had expected.
	We have an opportunity to encourage the market and the industry to respond to undoubted public interest. If the Bill obtains a Second Reading today, we must make sure as it goes on that it reflects public concern and interest. This is an immense opportunity for the United Kingdom. Let us take it, and let us go forward on the basis outlined in the Bill.

Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) most sincerely on an extremely valuable Bill, which I hope will receive its Second Reading. I also congratulate all the Members, across the parties, who have added their names in support of it, including myhon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell).
	The background is the threat from climate change, and, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, I do not want to go into that in great detail. Suffice it to say that predictions from scientists become more rather than less apocalyptic as time goes on. It is clear that we need drastic action domestically and internationally, and tackling energy issues is a key part of that.
	The Government's climate change review, coming up shortly, gives them an opportunity to recognise what has gone right and what has gone wrong, to take stock and to come forward with measures that may differ from what they have advocated before in order to meet the Kyoto target this country has set itself and the domestic target of a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions. They will not do that successfully if they rely on pulling the same levers as they have used in recent years. Without wishing to appear partisan on a non-partisan Bill, I may say that it is a matter of fact that carbon emissions are rising in this country, and we therefore need a step change in how we approach them.
	The Bill successfully and innovatively challenges the basis on which energy is delivered in this country. Hitherto, energy has been about big sources of power in certain strategic locations, with huge swathes of power lines taking power from those sources to where it is needed elsewhere in the country. That has been the case with coal-fired power stations, oil-fired stations and nuclear stations, and the same principle is, arguably, being applied to wind farms. The Bill rightly turns that on its head, saying that there is a better way to meet our energy needs in the 21st century.
	One way to do that is undoubtedly energy efficiency; that is, in an over-used cliché, the low-hanging fruit yet to be picked by the Government. A huge amount could be done to tackle carbon emissions if we had a sensible energy efficiency strategy. Another way to deal with it would be to promote micro-generation. It makes no sense to have an electricity grid, with all the investment that requires and with power lines stretched across the country, simply to meet winter peak demand. That energy grid is simply not being used at capacity, except on a few occasions over the year. Yet we carry on building the grid, building power lines and disfiguring the country with pylons.

Norman Lamb: Is my hon. Friend aware of the work commissioned by Greenpeace on the importance of local generation and of moving away from the old-fashioned national grid, which was designed for a different age and which is not fit for purpose in today's world?

Norman Baker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Greenpeace document on centralising energy has much to commend it, and I hope that when the climate change review is published—whenever that will be; it seems to be slipping, and perhaps the Minister might tell us today—it will reflect some of the sensible proposals set out in the Greenpeace document.
	As well as dealing with the old-fashioned grid to which my hon. Friend referred, the Bill localises energy in an entirely desirable way. It applies the proximity principle. It empowers people and local communities.

Nick Hurd: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in welcoming the work of Woking borough council—a Conservative council, as it happens—in proving that in practice? By decentralising energy, it has reduced carbon emissions by more than 70 per cent. Will he join me in acknowledging that success?

Norman Baker: Indeed, I will, and I think the figure is 77 per cent. Woking has done extraordinarily well, and I hope that that lesson can be picked up by other local authorities and the Government. By the way, that also shows the value of not tying the hands of local government, allowing it the flexibility and space to develop such ideas, which can then be rolled out elsewhere in the country when they prove to be a success.

Jennifer Willott: It is important, too, to involve the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament in these measures. A lot of issues around energy efficiency lie within their remits. Has my hon. Friend any views on the involvement of the devolved Parliament and Assembly?

Norman Baker: I agree that we need to involve both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, as well as local councils, community groups and individuals. The Bill is about devolving responsibility to individuals, which it is absolutely right to do.
	The old system of power delivery simply is not fit for purpose. It is not working to deliver the environmental, economic and social objectives that we all want promoted. Of all the energy generated from fossil fuels, 61.5 per cent. is lost through inefficient generation and heat wastage, which leaves 38.5 per cent. to go into the national grid. Some 3.5 per cent. is lost in transmission and distribution, leaving 35 per cent. that actually gets somewhere, of which 13 per cent.—roughly a third—is wasted through inefficient end use. All that means that barely a fifth of the energy generated is actually used. Given the challenge of climate change, that wastage is intolerable.

Philip Hollobone: We are in danger of confusing transmission of electricity, which goes over a long distance at high voltage, with the local distribution of electricity at a lower voltage on a far more local level. This country's national grid has the most robust transmission system in the world, and while I favour micro-generation, I do not think that we should gainsay the effectiveness of the national grid.

Norman Baker: I can happily pass on to the hon. Gentleman a parliamentary answer detailing transmission losses from the national grid, so there is an issue there. The point about localised energy, as opposed to distance energy, needs to be recognised.
	Woking borough council, as mentioned, has slashed 77 per cent. of its CO 2 emissions by setting up decentralised energy networks and instigating energy efficiency measures. That shows the potential that can be achieved across the country. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked about the potential of the Bill. If half the homes in Britain installed 1 Kw micro-CHP or micro-wind turbines, it would provide as much winter generating capacity as all our nuclear power stations put together, so the potential is enormous.

Danny Alexander: Does my hon. Friend agree that a further potential benefit of the Bill is that it would help to tackle fuel poverty, which is a particularly important issue at the moment, given rising fuel prices—especially of heating oil—in areas that do not have mains gas supply, such as the Highlands and Islands? That is another reason to support micro-generation through this Bill.

Norman Baker: It is always spooky when someone intervenes to make the next point in my speech, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. As well as tackling fuel poverty, the Bill would be useful in rural areas. For example, domestic heat pumps are already in use in Cornwall and other areas where there is no mains gas. That has an empowering effect and also tackles the carbon emissions that would result from oil use or inappropriate gas use.

Lembit �pik: Does my hon. Friend agree that while wind power has its place, one of the great frustrations for people in rural areas is that they are beginning to feel like the new macro-energy producers? It is as much a scourge on local communities to be surrounded by large wind turbines as it was to live next to a large power station.

Norman Baker: I must say that I would rather live near a wind farm than a power station. It is right to try to localise energy supply wherever possible, and I have supported individual wind turbines in my constituency and elsewhere, which can meet local needs. If such initiatives are pursued, people will feel ownership of the structures, rather than feeling that they are simply there to serve somebody else.

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman's constituency, like mine, has several farming communities that have experienced a relative decline, especially in hop gardens and fruit crops. A big expansion in the use of biomass fuel could help to regenerate some of those local communities before it is too late.

Norman Baker: I agree. There is a wonderful opportunity for a win-win situation, with the production of less carbon-producing energy that also supports our farming industry. That potential has not yet been maximised. We need to do more, and I welcome the biomass taskforce report from Sir Ben Gill, although I was surprised that it did not recommend a renewable heat obligation. That is included in the Bill, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view on it. I am in no doubt that a renewable heat obligation would be valuable, and that is why I tabled an early-day motion on the matter in 2004. Indeed, the Government signed up to the renewable transport fuels obligation only this week, and they have signed up to a renewables obligation generally. So the Government recognise that the mechanism works, and I look forward to the Minister saying why he does or does not agree with its use for renewable heat.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman mentions Sir Ben Gill's taskforce. Is he aware of other reports, including one by the Scottish Executive, that supported the renewable fuel obligation? The Scottish Executive report also pointed out that such an obligation could create 2,000 jobs in rural areas of Scotland.

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point and I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind when he responds.
	The Bill would also require an annual report on greenhouse gas emissions, which is a sensible idea. Indeed, hon. Members may have noted that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and I have suggested something similar. We should have targets, an annual debate with a Government response, and external audits of what the Government are doing.

Eric Forth: Some stress has been laid this morning on targets and reports, but how impressed has the hon. Gentleman been with the Government's track record on the plethora of targets that they have set in the past eight years and the avalanche of reports and reviews produced? What results have flowed from those, and why is the hon. Gentleman so optimistic that the reports that the Bill would generate would have any more positive results?

Norman Baker: There is a tendency to set targets for a long time hence and then find that they have not been met. The Bill would have annual targets, externally audited, with a requirement to report to Parliament. That is a much more vigorous and sensible approach than the use of targets so far, which has been rather loose.
	I am delighted to support the Bill and that it has cross-party support. It is strongly supported by the Liberal Democrats, as shown by the strong turn-out of my colleagues, and I hope that it will have a safe passage through its remaining stages.

Andrew Smith: Action to tackle climate change is a vital global challenge and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on introducing the Bill. I am very pleased to be listed as one of its supporters and I hopethe signs are encouragingthat it will have enough support from other hon. Members and the Government to receive a Second Reading this afternoon, along with the Management of Energy in Buildings Bill, on which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead).
	As we have heard, the Bill would encourage and facilitate domestic micro-generation, the promotion of community energy, and the development of a renewable heat obligation. All that makes very good environmental sense and very good economic sense, but I want to say a word on why it also makes such good political sense. That is not only because it responds to a growing concern among many of our constituents that if climate change is really such a threat, we should do more about it. It is also because people are enthusiastic to do more about it in their everyday lives.

Eric Forth: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to open his post this morning. I have of course opened mine, as I do every morning, and studied it carefully. By coincidence in today's post, I received the results of a survey conducted by MORI on behalf of EDF which asked what the most important issues were for the people of this country. Global warming and climate change came a poor seventh in the list. I point that out because I do not want the House to run away with the idea that everybody has global warming and climate change at the top of their personal agendas: they do not.

Andrew Smith: One can draw whatever conclusions one wants from surveys that arrive in the post. All I can say is that in my regular street surgeries in Oxford, one of the main issues raised recently was not the Terrorism Bill, nor even the NHS or education, but climate change, the importance of plastics recycling and the environment in general. In my surveys of young voters in particularI am sure that other hon. Members have had similar experiencesclimate change, and the need for more local action, are consistently some of the top issues raised.
	It is crucial that such matters be not left to G8 summits and world conferences, but that people see what they can do in their own homes and neighbourhoods. Micro-generation enables people to think globally and act locally. I am pleased that the Bill includes a duty on the Secretary of State to promote community energy. In Oxfordshire, at Watchfield, we have an exciting project to build Westhill wind farmthe first in south-east England. One of the reasons it will be the first is the difficulty that community renewable energy schemes face. Projects with a capacity below 5 MW and a significant community buy-in are unattractive to conventional developers, who prefer the wholesale energy market. Advice and risk finance are difficult to obtain. The Bill will help by allowing the Secretary of State to allocate funds to promote investment in community energy schemes and provide them with advice. A lot could be achieved with modest amounts of money including, for example, for grants that could be repaid by successful schemes.
	A conference will be hosted in Oxford next Aprilthe world's solar cities conferencewhere local authorities and local initiatives across the world will share ideas and expertise. I hope colleagues will encourage constituents to take part, and I shall circulate details. It would be great if delegates from the UK were able to tell others what a boost progress on the Bill is giving micro-generation.
	If we are to give the Bill a Second Reading, we need to keep our remarks brief so I shall mention only a couple of barriers that I am glad that the measure addresses. Obtaining green energy certificates for micro-generation can still be difficult and expensive. In some cases renewable obligations certificates cost more than a micro-generator is worth. Ofgem should tackle the regulatory burden of the certificates by making them accessible for the householder, so that micro-generators can benefit from Government support for renewables. I welcome the provisions that would minimise the cost and administrative burdens of domestic micro-generation.
	Like community energy schemes, micro-generation suffers from the structure of the traditional energy market. Unlike large generators, householders are not in a position to undertake complex commercial negotiations with energy suppliers. I especially welcome clause 7, which takes a crucial step forward in requiring energy suppliers to offer to buy micro-generated energy from householders at the market rate. Household energy generation would be put on the same terms as household energy supplya straightforward and commonsense approach which empowers consumers who are producers.
	Taken together, those steps and other aspects of the measure would ensure that micro-generation makes a significant contribution to hitting the 10 per cent. target for energy from renewable sources by 2010. As other Members have pointed out, the Bill offers real opportunities to address fuel poverty, as well as benefits to poor countries through technology transfer.
	In conclusion, climate change, energy conservation and sustainable energy are vitally important, as more and more of our constituents recognise. This is a crucial time for taking the decisions and action necessary to determine how to meet our commitments on climate change and put the future of UK energy production on a sustainable basis. The Bill tackles regulatory and financial barriers that hold back community energy and the potential of micro-generation. It will promote sustainable energy, improve community involvement and encourage people to save energy. Passing the measure will help to ensure that climate change and sustainable energy are at the very top of the political agenda. Its provisions are good for the environment, good for the economy and will enable people to combat global danger with local action. I commend the Bill to the House.

Philip Hollobone: I add my support for the Bill. I have received more letters on climate change than on any other subject. Since the election, I have received more than 50 representations, including one from the Southfield school for girls. I commend the students and their head of geography, Mrs. Christine Lunt, who lobbied me on climate change on their own initiative, not in response to any campaign. As the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said, it is clear that the younger members of our communities hold strong views on climate change.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend has just boasted that he received 50 representations since the election. Will he remind me of how many voters there are in his constituency?

Philip Hollobone: There are 81,000 voters, so I concede that 50 is a small percentage, but it is still the largest number of representations that I have received on any issue. In my view, that reflects serious concern in the Kettering constituency.

Bernard Jenkin: The survey conducted by MORI for EDF to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred earlier also demonstrated that, when people were asked about electricity generation, about 79 per cent. of the sample regarded the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions as the most important thing. Although the Government's failures on crime and health rank higher in the public's mind, energy matters and the reduction of carbon dioxide are also important.

Philip Hollobone: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention.
	I am disappointed that we should be forced to discuss these issues in private Members' time. If the Government were really serious about tackling climate change, they would have already adopted the proposals in the Bill and presented their own legislation to the House in Government time. It is disappointing not only that we are retreating on our carbon emissions targets, but that the Government have yet to demonstrate that they are taking the issue seriously. The Bill's proposal that the Government come to the House once a year to present a report on how they are tackling carbon emissions would be a welcome addition to the transparency of the process.
	I am particularly excited by the idea of extending renewable obligation certificates to individual householders to export their electricity to the local distribution network. That could become the new green pound. It would not force people to take up micro-generation but would act as a powerful financial incentive for those who wanted to implement such schemes. Once the idea caught on, it could become extremely popular. The Bill has tremendous potential to help our local farming communities, many of whom in the Kettering constituency have written to me on the subject. Farmers could grow crops to turn into electricity that would supply local communities.
	Although I am disappointed that we are not discussing the subject in Government time, as we should, I welcome the proposals introduced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz).

Michael Weir: I want to make a few points, but first I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on such a good Bill. In his remarks, he concentrated on micro-generation, but I want to say something about the renewable heat obligation, as it is a vital part of the Bill.
	I am aware that Sir Ben Gill's taskforce recently came out against renewable heat obligation, but I also note that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recommended such an obligation. Furthermore, as I mentioned in an intervention, a report from the Scottish Executive showed that biomass could not only contribute to reducing climate change, but create about 2,000 jobs in rural areas of Scotland. Our farming and forestry industries face tough times so that would give them an important boost.
	Yesterday, when the Government introduced the renewable transport fuel obligation, the National Farmers Union in Scotland issued a press release that can only be described as glowingthe first time it has ever done so for a Government policy. That just goes to show what those obligations can do for industry in rural areas, in England as well as in Scotland. The renewable heat obligation would not only tackle climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but would stimulate the biomass industry and help with energy security. We worry about having to get supplies of gas from places such as Kazakhstan and Russia, and we worry that coming winters may be extremely cold; the measure would do more to assure energy security with supplies from small-scale developments in our own nation.
	The Bill mentions fuel poverty, although not in great detail. A worrying thing in Scotland is that a rising number of people are suffering fuel poverty as the cost of energy increases. All the energy companies recently announced high hikes in both gas and electricity prices, which puts thousands more Scots, and other people in the UK, in fuel poverty. Renewable fuel obligations would help to diversify energy supply and thus tackle fuel poverty. However, when considering all such schemes, we must bear in mind the fact that costs are important. To reduce fuel poverty, we must reduce the cost of electricity to consumers.
	We should not get carried away by micro-generation. Renewable energy also means that we have to feed into the national grid. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me mention transmission charges; my colleagues and I have tackled him on that subject on many occasions, going back to the Standing Committee on the Energy Act 2004. It is something that we are very concerned about, because the transmission charge regime proposed by Ofgem will be a huge detriment to the development of renewable energy in the north of Scotlandan area that is particularly suited to the development of renewable energy. The 10-year cap is too short to allow a payback on many of these developments, and of course they only get the full 10 years if they are up and running when the cap comes into being.
	This is a serious issue. I know that the matter is out to consultation. I do not expect that the Minister will have anything to say about that today, but it is an important arm in dealing with renewable energy. The Bill will go a long way to help the provision of renewable energy, but there must be action on transmission charges to ensure that we get the benefit from the massive potential from wind, wave and tidal power that there is in Scotland, and which may well be crippled by the transmission charge regime that is currently proposed.

Brooks Newmark: I, too, commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) for his foresight in introducing the Bill. I very much welcome the contribution that he has made by encouraging a progressive and sensible response to climate change. The time is long overdue for us to confront this ever-present and growing concern, so I should like to talk about the broader principles that the Bill addresses.
	We must all recognise that we face an overriding problem when dealing with climate change. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) identified the difficulty during the Opposition day debate on tackling climate change. He said then that
	we are unlikely to make progress on climate change until the public take it more seriously, and . . . we have all failed in doing that job.[Official Report, 12 October 2005, vol. 437, c. 365.]
	That very much backs up the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made. This is not a high priority on many people's lists. When lists are published they include crime, health care and law and order, all of which are far more pressing issues on people's minds. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) and thee right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr.   Smith) said, this is indeed a pressing matter, particularly for young people. They are the people who send me letters and make representations to me on the subject.

Eric Forth: I am sure that my hon. Friend, taking the interest that he does in the subject, is absolutely familiar with the excellent report recently produced by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, which, if I get a chance to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may want to expand on. Is my hon. Friend aware of their lordships' excellent conclusions, and if so what weight does he give to them?

Brooks Newmark: I very much appreciate my right hon. Friend's guidance on this matter. I confess that I have not had the time that he has had to study it in the depth that he probably has, but that does not necessarily negate the argument that I am making.
	If we continue to talk of climate change in terms of international accords and global trends, we shall continue to fail in winning over the public. Kyoto is important and effective carbon trading is important, but if ever an issue needed to be tackled at a grass-roots level it is climate change. That is why I believe that the Bill raises a very important principle.
	It seems that we have two options for encouraging a change in public opinion. The first is to continue with sporadic warnings about the dire consequences of doing nothing. They will unfortunately occasionally be backed up by tragedies, like Boscastle, or farces like the annual water shortages caused by the wrong kind of rain. The alternative is to provide meaningful and accessible incentivesI use that word as opposed to regulations or directivesfor ordinary people to contribute to the country's energy efficiency.
	In 2002, domestic users accounted for about 24 per cent. of the UK's greenhouse gases and 27 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions. Three quarters of that figure results from heating and hot water alone. Indeed, domestic users are the largest single group of energy users in the UK, which is another reason why I find the Bill extremely attractive.
	About 140,000 new houses are built each year, and that could increase to 260,000 a year in the light of the proposals arising from the Barker review. Building regulations were upgraded in 2002 to increase the performance of new dwellings by 25 per cent., and I welcome the increase of another 25 per cent. this year. However, regulations are not quite the same as incentives and they are not nearly as effective. Regulations do not generally encourage anyone to exceed the acceptable minimum standards. I therefore believe that the right thing to do is to offer fiscal incentives for energy efficiency.
	I shall address the proposals in clauses 3 and 5 with reference to the example set by my own constituency of Braintree. Braintree council recently introduced a pioneering scheme to offer council tax rebates to home owners who install cavity wall insulation. Residents who join the scheme get a 100 council tax rebate for spending 170 on having their walls insulated. It is possible to save 100 on heating bills in the first year alone. That in itself must be attractive, and probably far less costly than perhaps even the micro-generation proposals that were mentioned earlier.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend knows my concernwe discussed it earlier. The Braintree scheme is admirable, but there are parts of the country where, owing to the nature of historic building construction, many householders do not have the option of installing cavity wall or similar types of insulation. If a local authority, on its own initiative, offers a council tax rebate to those householders who install insulation, those householders get a double benefitthey save some fuel costs and they get their council tax rebate. However, without support from the centre, that council tax rebate is effectively funded by other members of the community who are not fortunate enough to be able to make the energy saving. Will my hon. Friend address that point?

Brooks Newmark: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I believe that the scheme extends to loft insulation, as well. Councils throughout the land are increasingly having what we would all refer to as green agendas, and that scheme is very much part and parcel of an excellent green agenda for Braintree council.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and the intervention on him was particularly interesting. He mentioned loft insulation. Does he accept that thatched cottages offer tremendous insulation? He will have noticed, for example, that when there is snowfall, the snow evaporates quite quickly from conventional tiled houses, whereas it remains on thatch. Could it not be argued that there ought to be some financial incentive for people with thatched houses, too?

Brooks Newmark: I am sure that my hon. Friend is an expert on thatched coverage to the upper regions of one's house, so to speak. He is absolutely rightthatch is indeed an excellent form of insulation, as is white snow.
	The Braintree scheme illustrates how quickly energy savings can repay capital investments. Tax incentives ensure an even quicker return, although I sound a note of caution about fiscal incentives. I believe that Braintree district council's scheme has been so successful because it is simple and easy as well as cost-effective. It is helped, of course, by the fact that the council tax is very much on everyone's mind at the momentespecially pensioners and the less well offand any opportunity for a discount would immediately be attractive. The Association for the Conservation of Energy has said of fiscal incentives for energy efficiency that
	there is no doubt that consumers like to think they are getting something for nothing, especially if it is some kind of valid avoidance.

Nick Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the Braintree example because it is hugely important. The chief executive of the Energy Saving Trust told the Environmental Audit Committee that more than 600 households have applied for the rebate in just the few months since its implementation. Does not that information confirm my hon. Friend's thesis that exactly that type of short, sharp and simple fiscal incentive will break through the consumer apathy that has been the brake on attempts by successive Governments to make a breakthrough in the energy efficiency agenda?

Brooks Newmark: Indeed, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In fact, I had an opportunity to speak to the councillor who is leading the charge on thisCouncillor Walterswho said that he has been inundated by e-mails from other councils that want to introduce such a scheme into their local communities because of its simplicity and cost-effectiveness.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend has already quoted what one if not two single-interest, publicly funded quangos have said on this subject. Does he have the same scepticism about their advice as the House showed to the chief police officers' advice that was so much criticised by Opposition Members just the other day? I hope that he is not suggesting that we should all accept uncritically what a single-interest, publicly funded quango says about something.

Brooks Newmark: Once again, my right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am always very sceptical about what comes from quangos. However, I also believe that it is important that we listen and then, having listened to whatever outside parties are involved, we reach our own conclusions and judgments. So having listened and read probably in a far more limited way than my right hon. FriendI am sure that, as a much more learned Member, he has done much more work on thisI have reached my own conclusions, which I am presenting to the House today.
	We must be conscious that not all fiscal incentives are so easy to understand. Clause 3 will require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish a strategy for fiscal and economic measures that will assist micro-generation and energy efficiency. The concern must be that the Chancellor's fascination with Gordian taxation schemes will run amok once again. An incentive is of no use if it cannot be readily appreciated as such by those people whom it exists to try to benefit. The danger is surely that the Bill will be railroaded into becoming yet another excuse for increased regulatory burdens in return for obscure tax credits.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point about Gordian tax complexity. One or two Members have already mentioned the pitfall that those who set up micro-generation capacity might face if they find themselves with a liability to national non-domestic ratesbusiness rates, to the laymanbut there is also a risk, given the Chancellor of the Exchequer's well-known propensity for revenue raising, that household consumers who sell micro-generation capacity back to electricity companies might find themselves, either now or in future, taxed by the Chancellor on those revenues.

Brooks Newmark: I thank my right hon. Friend[Interruption]my hon. Friend. He is not right hon. yet. I meant right as in correct. I thank him for his contribution once again.
	The paper, Economic instruments to improve household energy efficiency, jointly published by DEFRA and the Treasury in 2003, lists no fewer than 12 separate economic instruments to encourage energy efficiency, including council tax and stamp duty rebates, which have already been subject to an early-day motion. I will not emit any further CO 2 on the proposals listed in that report, except to say that we must be wary that the list does not grow unchecked. I have no hesitation in speaking in support of the principle of the Bill, but we have a duty to ensure that its provisions will be implemented as well as they have been drafted.

Mark Harper: I note that the Bill's principle purpose is to consider the effects of climate change and the United Kingdom's contribution to it, so I want to dwell for a moment on the opening comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) and the point raised in an intervention about the Government's strategy. The hon. Gentleman has been quoted as saying that there is a worrying trend that the UK will struggle to meet the 20 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, and that he wants the measure to help the   Government to get on track. He recognises the disappointment that many people feel about the Government's approach.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key), who is no longer in his place, referred to some scepticism in his local authority area about whether climate change was happening and whether it was being driven by man-made effects. The science is clear that climate change is happening and that it is being affected by man's intervention, but there is a point that gets less coverage. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for drawing to my attention the very excellent report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs entitled, The Economics of Climate Change, which I have had the opportunity to study in detail. The Select Committee draws attention to the fact that although climate change no doubt exists, the conversations about it and policy making are very much focused on the environment and science and have, to date, paid much less attention to the costs of climate changes and of the many measures that can be taken to deal with it.

Eric Forth: I do not know whether my hon. Friend will come to this at some stage in his speech, to which I shall listen with fascination, but will he talk about scenarios and temperature ranges? Various things came out very clearly in their lordships' excellent report. For example, in paragraph 72, they say:
	We received a significant amount of evidence on the realism of . . . emissions scenarios, and doubts were raised, particularly about the high emissions scenarios.
	That all sounds very technical and obscure. Of course, for understandable reasons, the Bill's promoter did not want to detain the House for too long on the underlying principles of climate change, but will my hon. Friend consider any of that during his remarks?

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I am afraid that my background is based rather more on the finance and economics of the argument. I am not an expert on engineering and technical mattersI know that some hon. Members areso I probably will not dwell on those scenarios. I want to focus on the economic costs and the alternative ways to deal with climate change. Many hon. Members have referred to a view of the debate that is shared on both sides of the House. Everyone accepts that climate change is happening and causing a problem, but there is not universal consensus about the best way to deal with it and the way to do so most economically.
	Before my right hon. Friend intervened, I was making a point about the different options that are open to the Government. I look forward to the Minister's remarks in response to the debate about the Government's policy and the way that they have analysed their different options and the most cost-effective ways to address climate change. Certainly, their lordships' conclusion in their report:
	We are concerned that UK energy and climate policy appears to be based on dubious assumptions about the roles of renewable energy and energy efficiency and
	most importantly
	that the costs to the UK of achieving its objectives have been poorly documented. We look to the Government, with much stronger Treasury involvement
	I hope that the Minister will focus on this at least briefly in his remarks
	to review and substantiate the cost estimates and to convey them in a transparent form to the public.
	The public could then be properly cognisant of the costs and trade-offs that they must consider when looking at energy policy.
	Government energy policy has been touched on at some length. When questioning the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst touched on the potential for micro-generation in dealing with our total energy capacity. The hon. Gentleman said that people have estimated that micro-generation could achieve up to 10 per cent. of generation capacity, although he would not necessarily go as high as that. My concern is that trends are developing, particularly with nuclear energy and its decommissioning

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will now stand and observe two minutes silence in remembrance of those who gave their lives for their country.
	The House observed a two-minute silence.

Mark Harper: Just before we were very valuably interrupted, I was touching on Government energy policy. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith said that he would not go as far as to suggest that 10 per cent. of our energy capacity should come from micro-generation, but a number of us are concerned by what will happen to our other generating capacity. No doubt, the Minister for Energy will comment on that. Something like 23 per cent. of our energy needs are supplied by nuclear power and many in the House will know that that figure will fall tremendously over the next 20 years.
	Those outside the House, particularly the younger members of the community to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) drew attention and who have taken part in community micro-generation and driven up renewable energy generation in this country, will be disappointed if fossil fuel generation comes in to fill the gap because decisions are not taken about the renewal of our nuclear capacity. That would negate all the work that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith suggests that we do. I hope that the Minister will comment on where the Government's review of energy policy has reached and when he might bring forward to the House thoughts on where the Government stand, particularly on their plans for nuclear generation and whether they see that as having a role. The cross-party Committee that drew up their lordships report said:
	We think that current nuclear power capacity, before further decommissioning occurs, should be retained.
	The only technical point that I shall make relates to something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said. Many Members have drawn attention to the range of technology solutions that are referred to in the Lords Committee's report. Table 8 on page 46 contains a whole list of emission-reducing technologies that Professor Dennis Anderson of Imperial college, London, has put together. It refers to a whole range of things, including the biofuels that have been mentioned by hon. Members and the photovoltaic solutions that are possible in micro-generation. The report says:
	Given the wide array of potential technologies . . . we are surprised that the Government's Energy White Paper should place such emphasis on just one technology, wind energy.
	It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the breadth of energy solutions that the Government are considering. What contribution does he think that micro-generation could make to our total energy requirement and how does the cost of that compare with other solutions?

Eric Forth: Is my hon. Friend convinced that the costings of all the alternative methods of producing energy, such as the building and maintenance of windmills and the production of photovoltaic cells and their disposal after their working life, have been fully considered? Does he believe that the analysis of their lordships or of others takes full account of the whole-life cost of various types of energy production and, not least, the costs of their environmental disposal at the end of life?

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I do not think that that has been done. One of the concerns that their lordships raise comes down to the public's scepticism about politicians. If we do not run through all the solutions, include all the costs and have a full and frank discussion with the public about the costs of climate change and of dealing with it, their lordships argue:
	Ultimately, a public that is not adequately informed may react adversely to the discovery that more and more cost burdens will fall on them, and on their children, in the name of warming control.
	Their lordships refer briefly to the fuel protests in 1999 and 2000 as an illustration of what happens and how sensitive the public are to even relatively modest increases in the cost of energy. I hope that the Minister will give us an idea of how the Government see the costs of energy panning out over the next few years and how the proposals in the Bill might impact on that.
	Having dwelt for a few moments on climate change and the thoughts of their lordships, I now want to turn to the Bill and make a couple of comments about it. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) referred to targets in his speech and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked him whether a strategy of having targets and reports had been very effective. I am a little more sceptical than the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith about the likely success of such a strategy.
	The most important provision in the Bill appears in clause 2 on an Annual report on greenhouse gas emissions. Clause 2(1) lays
	a duty on the Prime Minister in the course of each year to lay before Parliament a report on
	(a)   steps the government has taken to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases . . . and
	(b)   the level of emissions of greenhouse gases in the United Kingdom.
	That just asks the Prime Minister to lay before the House a report, even though, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has suggested, the Government are past masters at producing reports, documents, working parties and all sorts of other groups. When difficult decisions need to be taken in local government, we know that they set up a report under an eminent person. When the report is produced and a tricky decision is neededI am sure that decisions on climate change will be the sameyet another report under the same eminent person is commissioned and the issue is kicked into the long grass. Just asking the Prime Minister to produce a report without imposing any further duties on him is an excuse to lay before the House lots of documents and hot air, with not much progress being made towards the targets.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that that part of the Bill had caught my eye. I wonder what would happen if the report said that no progress had been made. If we were lucky, we might be given a debate in the House, although we certainly would not have a vote because the Government do not like debates with votes any more. Has my hon. Friend speculated about what might happen if these rather tediously frequent reports ended up saying that very little had happened at all?

Mark Harper: The Prime Minister makes an important point[Laughter.] I am sure that that Freudian slip has filled some hon. Members with great joy and others with great horror[Interruption.] I see that it would be joy on the other side of the House.
	Given the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering about the fact that the Government are failing to stay on track to hit their targets, the Prime Minister might face the choice of either bringing a full and frank report before the House that made it clear that the Government had made little progress on reaching their targetsand, in fact, had hit fewer targets on the reduction of greenhouse gases than the Government led by Sir John Majoror producing a long and verbose report that skirted around the issues and made the steps that the Government had taken unclear.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, the Bill provides for a debate on the report. I welcome that, because it is always good to give the House the opportunity to debate such important issues. As he said, however, a vote after the debate would be unlikely because the Government would not want to put their policy on climate change to a challenge. Little concrete progress towards meeting targets would be made merely by bringing a report before the House.

Eric Forth: Has my hon. Friend thought about what would happen if the motions in the two Houses of Parliament to which the Bill refers were put to a vote and the votes went in different ways? For example, the House of Commons might vote in favour of the report, but following the excellent House of Lords report to which he and I referred, their lordships might vote against the Government's report. Where would that leave us?

Mark Harper: We would be in a confused and unclear position.
	Perhaps the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith will explain what would happen if the Prime Minister laid a report before the House that made it clear that the Government had made little progress? The Bill does not seem to give the Government any specific duty to make progressthey must merely lay reports before the House. We would prefer the Government to take action, instead of merely generating more paperwork and red tape.
	The Bill would give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the duty of preparing and publishing
	a report on such fiscal measures he considers appropriate.
	That relates to a point that I made in an intervention onmy hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark). It would be helpful to set out in detail the guidance that we would want to give the Chancellor. Given the Chancellor's record so far, if he gets anywhere near this, people who produce their own power in a micro-generation plant and sell it back to an electricity company will almost certainly be pursued by the Inland Revenue for tax. Hon. Members have pointed out that people who already partake in micro-generation are pursued for national non-domestic rates. Given that the Bill invites the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider fiscal measures, I cannot believe that he would come up with any such measures that would reduce tax. He would not pass up the chance to increase the amount of tax that people pay. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith gets his right hon. Friend the Chancellor involved, he might set back the course of micro-generation and energy efficiency, rather than enhance it.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst questioned the hon. Member for Lewes about targets. I understand why the Government might be attracted to the concept of setting a national target and having every local authority in the land set a local target. However, nationally and locally driven targets have not been remarkably successful in any other area. The centre can be too prescriptive about its targets, and if such targets were to drive people in one way or another, despite the rapid pace of technological change, valuable changes in generational technology could be missed because people would be sent off in a different direction. Given the lack of success of Government targets in other areas, I am a little sceptical about the targets in the Bill.
	Have the Minister and his Department given any thought to the target regime that they might introduce? The Bill establishes a broad power because clause 4(5) says:
	It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to take such steps as he considers necessary to secure that the target established in accordance with subsection (1) is met.
	The House thus needs to know from the Minister what the Secretary of State's thinking might be.

Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend share my worry that if we took that provision literally and the Secretary of State felt so obliged, it could represent an open-ended commitment to public expenditure? If progress was not forthcoming in any other way, might not a Secretary of State, in adhering to the aims and provisions of the Bill, feel obliged to spend large sums of public money to reach the targets that had been set?

Mark Harper: I invite the Minister to comment on the good point that my right hon. Friend makes. Although I listened to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith with great care, I do not think that he spoke at any length about the possible cost of some of his proposals. We must be cognisant of that, especially in the light of their lordships' guidance on properly taking account of costs and being upfront and frank with the public about the options and difficult choices that must be made.
	Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree and the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who is no longer in the Chamber, mentioned the policies of their local authorities. The Bill would put a duty on such authorities to set a local target regime. The Bill's long title refers to the alleviation of fuel poverty, but I wonder whether an unintended consequence of the Bill might be to worsen fuel poverty.
	I think I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith confirmed that the Bill would put several duties on local authorities that would result in some cost. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will agree that we receive many letters from our constituents about the burden of council tax, which falls especially heavily on pensioners, who obviously make up one of the groups of people most affected by fuel poverty.

Brooks Newmark: I briefly remind my hon. Friend that the beauty of Braintree district council's proposal is that it is inexpensive and simple and has an immediate pay-back. One pays 170 for the insulation and the energy savings are approximately 100 per annum, so there is pay-back in less than two and a half years. The amount that is paid is not so expensive. We need a general broad set of targets, perhaps set by Government, and a light regulatory touch coupled with strong fiscal incentives. That is the combination that I propose to my hon. Friend.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point but he slightly misunderstands my point. I was not talking about his scheme but considering the burden on local authorities. Braintree council's scheme gives a council tax rebate. The problem is that, if a local authority gives, without support from the centre, a rebate to one citizen, it is a burden on all the other citizens in the local authority area. If we burden local authorities and do not support them through central Government grant, thus driving up council tax, that will be detrimental to those in the poorest communities. They may find that they have even less spare funds available to purchase necessary fuel. Perhaps the Minister for Energy would like to comment on that later.
	I want to consider the sale of electricity. I freely admit that I am not an expert or an engineer. Perhaps hon. Members with such backgrounds can advise me. The hon. Member for Lewes referred to losses in energy transmission. If we made a success of the approach that we are discussing, and millions of people throughout the country had their own micro-generation capacity and produced electricity that they wished to sell back to electricity companies, the Bill obliges the energy companies to purchase the energy at market rate. Hon. Members of all parties have welcomed that. I have a concern, which the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) also mentioned, about transmission charges.
	If we lay on electricity suppliers a requirement to purchase electricity, what physical infrastructure would be required to enable the transmission of those relatively small quantities of electricity into the local distribution network? How efficiently would that happen, and at what cost? If the obligation to purchase the power causes electricity companies to spend a great deal of money, the cost must be borne either by the person selling the electricity back to the transmission networkthat would probably offset the amount of revenue they getor electricity companies. In the latter case, the cost would be passed on to many consumers.

Brooks Newmark: Although I am not an engineer, I believe that we currently have primarily a pull strategy. We pull energy through the national grid into our local communities. As we pull it over long distances, the longer the distance, the more energy we lose in the pipeline or channel. A micro-generation strategy, which is based in a local community, becomes more of a push strategy. Any surplus energy is pushed away from the core. It is therefore likely that any surplus will be held in a relatively small area. I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about cost, but micro-generation is a far more efficient form of energy production.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for that point. The hon. Member for Lewes also dealt with energy efficiency in his remarks. I know the difference between the national transmission network, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering mentioned, and the local distribution network. I am simply considering the physical infrastructure and the mechanics of dealing with a large number of people who are trying to sell their electricity back to the grid. I wonder about the practicalities.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is conscious of the cost and accounting aspect of the measure. Has he considered whether the complex system and network that is being envisaged will be able to take account of depreciation and maintenance of all the micro-generating plants and how that might be factored into the realistic cost of producing energy? Does he share my suspicion that, up to now, everybody has somehow assumed that it is a free good?

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. One of the key points about the Bill is that, for it to work, consumers must be able to offset some of their energy costs with the revenue that they get from producing surplus electricity and selling it back to electricity companies. That works only if some of the costs involved are not borne by those consumers. If, consequently, we load lots of costs on to electricity companies, which they have to pass on to other consumers, some consumers might be a little more entrepreneurial than others, participate in the excellent local schemes and thus benefitthe hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith said that six to 10 million homes might benefit from the measure. However, those who do not participate may find that the cost of their electricity increases. That would not help to alleviate fuel poverty, which is one of the Bill's aims.

Brooks Newmark: Notwithstanding the excellent point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made, I remind my hon. Friend that maintenance is a cash item whereas depreciation is a non-cash item. We must take that into account when we consider helping to alleviate pensioner poverty and so on.

Mark Harper: I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

Eric Forth: Is the assumption being made that the individual home owner would own the capital micro-generating equipment? If people had ownership and responsibility for maintaining it, the depreciation point is relevant and would kick in.

Mark Harper: That is a valuable point.

Daniel Rogerson: Is the hon. Gentleman conscious of the contribution that unnecessary hot air may make to climate change?

Mark Harper: I am not entirely sure that that was a serious point. I have probably spent more time reading some of the stuff than some hon. Members.
	I want to consider growing the market for the sort of technology that we are considering. Several hon. Members received an excellent document, which included photographs of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, North and Leith and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). The document, which is entitled, Micro Power Nov 2005 from the Micropower Council, includes a joint statement by several companies that manufacture such technology. I am always a little suspicious when a group of business people gets together to make joint statements. I believe that Adam Smith said that we should beware when a group of business people gets together because it is probably not for the benefit of the public as a whole.
	The group states:
	But our bankers and investors will need a certain future market place to put up the substantial sums this involves.
	It is a little unusual for Labour Members to be willing to give protected markets and guaranteed returns to business people who can then invest substantial sums at no risk. If the technologies are so promising, it is surprising that an entrepreneurial business sector has not already taken a risk, made some investments, perhaps in marketing, and persuaded people of the promise of the technology. I am surprised that the market has not already taken off in that way.
	I am a little concerned about the requirement on heating fuel suppliers to demonstrate that a proportion of the fuel that they supply is from a renewable source. In rural areas, such as the one in which I live, fuel can be purchased from a very small supplier. It is unreasonable that that requirement impacts on all suppliers, however small, and forces them to diversify into the supply of renewable energy. I counsel caution in applying that provision too widely.

Mark Hunter: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill and to make a brief contribution to the debate.
	Since I was elected to Parliament, I have heard a number of Members speak about their postbags and the amount of correspondence that they have received on various issues. Some of those claims, particularly over the past few days, have worried me somewhat, as their postbags have clearly not borne any relation to mine. It is therefore with some relief that I can speak on an issue that really has captured the imagination of residents in Cheadle, and I certainly have a postbag to prove it.
	I want to praise all those who have been involved in the various campaigns to promote this and the accompanying Bill. As a local councillor in Stockport, I have already been able to support both Bills at a local level, with the backing of all parties there. Similarly effective information and publicity campaigns have been conducted up and down the country in the run-up to this debate.
	The technology involved in micro-generation offers a wide range of opportunities to contribute to what is arguably the most important of all global challenges. On thermal heating, household wind turbines, and fuel cellsto name just some of the technologies availablethe Bill can make a real impact through the encouragement that its measures offer householders.
	It is not just the technology that appeals to me. There is plenty of evidence in my constituency that the public take their responsibilities to the environment very seriously. That is why the local authority that covers my constituency has the highest levels of household recycling of any metropolitan authority, and it is why the constituents to whom I speak are eager to do even more to conserve energy and protect the environment. The measures in the Bill would tap into the enthusiasm and commitment of the public in a positive way, and in a way that simply does not exist at present. The Bill offers carrots to the public and sticks to the Government, because it is clear that this Government and Governments across the world need to move more quickly on this most important matter.
	Even those who believe that climate change is an enormous conspiracy theorywhich I most certainly do notand that global warming is neither a serious issue nor a major threat to us all, should think of all those utility bills dropping on the doormat. At a time of rising fuel prices, it would not be overstating the case to say that we have never needed such a Bill so much.
	There are compelling reasons to support this Bill on so many counts that it should satisfy those of all political persuasions and of none. The Bill combines the economic, scientific and moral case for environmentalism in a way that I believe really can reverse those negative trends that pose such a threat to us. The Bill is truly worthy of support from all sides.

Greg Clark: I am keen to see this and the other Bill to be presented today progress. As we have had some long speeches today, I merely want to record my support for the Bill. I hope that we can move to the Front-Bench speeches and make some progress.

Bill Wiggin: We have had some supportive and positive interventions from the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Salisbury (Robert Key), and an important point was made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) about the cost of setting up micro-generation. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) also made an important point about the Government framework. What a joy it has been for the second time this week to have so much consensus on both sides in the House. I hope that the Minister will refer at some stage to the gap in funding for the Clear Skies project, to which I shall return later.
	We heard a good speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), who emphasised the importance of the issue and the fact that the Bill enables people to go out and help themselves, which is an important principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) was very supportive, and spoke about young people and the success generated by local initiative.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), who was also supportive of the Bill, made a considerable contribution. He spoke about economics and his concerns about the potential total energy capacity from micro-generation, which was most helpful, and the Government's favouritism for wind energy, which is a concern across the country. He also asked whether the Prime Minister would announce his failures, about which we must be sceptical. As for bringing him to the House to explain one of his party's policies, that is something that he does not currently have to do.
	All in all, there were some extremely helpful and positive contributions from Conservative Members, and some questions which I hope that the Minister will answer. Conservatives have always supported promoting the environment, since Rio in 1992. We welcome proposals designed to improve the environment, and we welcome much of this private Member's Bill. I am grateful that these matters are being discussed on the Floor of the House.
	The Bill contains some beneficial measures to help combat climate change. Clause 2 makes provision for the Prime Minister to make an annual report. That will help with transparency and Government accountability. Back in 2000, the Prime Minister announced,
	the greatest threat to our environment today is climate change.
	In 2004, he remarked:
	Our effect on the environment, and in particular on climate change, is large and growing.
	This year, he used his presidency of the G8 to place climate change at the forefront of the agenda. At the Labour party conference in September, we heard the Prime Minister again pledging to formulate an energy policy some time next year.
	There has been lots of talk, but not much effective action. Despite the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 and the energy White Paper of February 2003, carbon dioxide, pre-eminent among greenhouse gases, has increased since 1997 by 4.7 per cent. Since the introduction in 2001of the climate change levy, which was designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we have seen greenhouse gas emissions increase. The Kyoto protocol requires us to ensure that our greenhouse gas emissions are 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels. Considering that the Prime Minister is the Head of Government, his high profile and the importance that he attaches to climate change, it is only right and proper that he should present to the House the annual report on greenhouse gas emissions and his Government's policy.
	Clause 2 will make it easier for Parliament to scrutinise the Government, and serve to make the Government more transparent and the Prime Minister more accountable to Parliament. As I said a few moments ago, the Prime Minister currently has no obligation to explain policies to the House. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) has sensibly included provisions for micro-generation, which is a technology that Conservative Members would like to see advanced. Section 82(1)(a) of the Energy Act 2004 states:
	The Secretary of State must prepare a strategy for the promotion of microgeneration in Great Britain,
	and we need to wait 18 months for this strategy to appear. The Government have already had eight years[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House takes a strong line on mobile phones going off while we are debating in the Chamber. I do not know whose mobile phone that was[Hon. Members: He's gone.] The Member responsible has obviously beaten a hasty retreat.

Bill Wiggin: We have had to wait eight years for the Government to develop such an energy strategyperhaps that was what the phone call was aboutand we are still waiting.
	This Bill reiterates the need for the Secretary of State to produce a strategy, and requires that the Secretary of State make an annual report to the House about the progress of the micro-generation strategy produced. Like the Prime Minister's report that the Bill advocates, the Secretary of State's report will serve to make the Government more accountable to Parliament for both their successes and their failures. This Bill goes further than section 82 of the Energy Act 2004, as it makes statutory provisions for the Secretary of State to set targets for the take-up of micro-generation in Great Britain. The stability for the industry that such a target would offer could reduce prices by as much as 50 per cent.those statistics come from the hon. Member forEdinburgh, North and Leith. Microgeneration has   huge advantages. The Sustainable Development Commission argues:
	Microgeneration technologies, in particular micro-renewables, have the potential to make a significant and prolonged contribution to efforts to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide . . . it is hard to envisage a scenario whereby on-site generation of both electricity and heat will not play a major part in future energy supply.
	The locality and individual input of micro-generation demonstrates further advantages for its use. The fact that it sources energy locally means that on-site electricity generation substantially reduces the transmission losses that can account for 7 per cent. of total output. That information comes from the Sustainable Development Commission and answers some of the questions from Members who spoke of the loss through the National Grid.
	Microgeneration plainly has economic and environmental advantages. It empowers individuals to make a visible impact on climate change. Research has confirmed that when individuals are using micro-generation, their awareness of the environment and energy use increases.
	In October 2005, the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable reported:
	It seems that microgeneration provides a tangible hook to engage householders emotionally with the issue of energy use . . . Householders describe the sheer pleasure of creation and of self-sufficiency: 'It's like growing your own vegetables.'
	It went on:
	The installation of microgeneration had a profound effect on many individuals across the samples, in homes and schools. Instead of being invisible and unengaging, they could now see the creative process of energy being made and powering their buildings. The emotional benefits from the energy, such as warmth, comfort, light, entertainment, cooking and cleanliness, were now strongly associated with the energy source and made people feel good about their own technology.
	Evidence demonstrates that the more the Government promote micro-generation, the more uptake there will be.
	Clause 7 will enable consumers to sell the surplus energy that they produce back to the grid. That economic incentive should prompt more people to install micro-generation. I believe that there are already plans to use hydropower energy production on the River Thames to meet about a third of the energy demands of Windsor castle, and there are individual projects such as those on the River Stour in Dorset. There is, however, a massive lack of Government support for those measures.
	In response to provisions in the Energy Act 2004, the Sustainable Development Commission commented:
	Since 2003, we have seen two primary initiatives aimed at encouraging the installation of microgeneration technologyClear Skies2, and the Major PV Demonstration Programmebut the extent of these programmes has been limited, with total funding over four years of around 42.5m. This has helped to create a domestic solar PV installation industry (and the UK's first manufacturing plant in Wales), and has dramatically increased the growth of other microrenewables. But it has not led to the creation of mass-market status, and in most cases microgeneration companies are small, and operate in a niche market.
	I hope that the Minister will talk more about the Clear Skies 2 programme. He shook his head following an intervention about the time lag and the continuity of the programmes. If he has some good things to say I shall be grateful, because he needs to explain why the micro-generation industry is not happy and has been complaining.
	Our economy is the second largest in Europe, yet the United Kingdom accounts for only 2 per cent. of Europe's installed thermal capacity. Germany managed to account for 47 per cent., more than 20 times as much. At the end of 2004, our installed capacity of photovoltaic energy production represented a mere 8.2 MWe out of an EU total of 410.5 MWe. Seven EU countries are installing more photovoltaic technology than we are, and even a country as small as Luxembourg can boast almost six times more photovoltaic capacity than us.
	The Minister has himself spoken of the need for micro-generation. In July, at the renewable power annual conference, he said:
	Our vision for the future is of an energy system that includes much more diverse, local energy generation. Small-scale renewable generation has an important part to play in helping the individual to make a contribution to our renewables targets and our wider energy policy goals.
	He went on to say that the Government
	must create the right competitive environment for these technologies to fulfil their potential.
	The Government are making over 800 million a year through the climate change levy. They should be able to fund some micro-generation projects, especially given that the costs of water turbines, for example, can be as low as 3,000. Earlier this month, during talks about climate change in London, the Prime Minister remarked:
	The solutions will come in the end, in part at least, through the private sector in developing technology and science.
	The Government have set themselves a target of reducing Britain's carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. In 1997 we were on target to achieve that; now that looks far less likely. The Government have been slow to respond to the changes, and it is the practical effects of many aspects of the Bill that will equip them to make a more positive response to climate change.
	Given the amount of Government rhetoric about climate change and sustainable energy production, why should not the Government support a Bill that would oblige them to do what they claim they want to do, but have not done yet?

Malcolm Wicks: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on presenting an important Bill and a well researched and considered case on climate change and sustainable energy. In the interests of time, which I know we all take seriously, I will not comment in detail on all that has been saidI hope Members will forgive mebut I will say that, at times, the talk here this morning has been as green as the House of Commons Benches. I find that significant.
	The private Member's Bill procedure is important. Some 10 years ago I had the opportunity through the ballot and the privilege through the House of introducing what became known as the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, with much support from the then Conservative health Ministers. I have told my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith privately that if I, a mere Labour Back Bencher in those days, could present a Bill under a Conservative Government, surely it may be possible for a Labour Member to do so now.
	My hon. Friend is himself a renewable source of energy, as he moves around the Chamber simply to confuse me! [Laughter.]

Eric Forth: rose

Malcolm Wicks: The right hon. Gentleman has not had much of an opportunity to intervene today, so I shall give way to him.

Eric Forth: Is the Minister aware that during the last three Fridays when we have discussed private Members' Bills, it has been his ministerial colleagues who have systematically talked out three of his Labour colleagues' Bills?

Malcolm Wicks: I was not aware of that, because, unlike some, I like to spend some time in my constituency on Fridays. I always feel that that is part of my duty. I am sometimes teased at meetings when I am reminded that I am the seventh Minister for Energy in eight years. I do not want to comment on that, but it shows the Government's dedication to renewables.
	Tackling climate change is a priority for the Government and, I detect, a key priority for all of us, or certainly most of us, in the House. The Prime Minister and others, too, have said that it is the greatest challenge facing the world today. While politicians often wax lyrical that their chosen subject is the biggest challenge, in terms of the evidence climate change claims the dubious crown of being the biggest challenge facing the world today.
	Our record on addressing the levels of harmful emissions that contribute to climate change is good. We are on track to meet our Kyoto protocol commitments, with emissions of all greenhouse gases projected to be approaching 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. However, we recognise that there is much more to do to meet our more ambitious target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. That is a challenge. Through the current review of the climate change programme, we are evaluating existing measures to reduce emissions and assessing new options for getting back on track to meet our ambitious target.

Mark Harper: If, as the Minister and the Government's chief scientific adviser have said, climate change is the most important challenge facing the world, will the Minister explain why these measures, which he has just said are valuable and well thought out, have had to be introduced by a Back-Bench Member rather than by Her Majesty's Government?

Malcolm Wicks: This House has a great traditionI cited my own modest contribution to itof making societal progress through the contribution of Back Benchers, and that has to be good for Parliament. However, I believe that the Government have a good record on micro-power, not least the work to meet our target of 10 per cent. of electricity coming from renewables overall by 2010.

Nick Hurd: rose

Malcolm Wicks: Obviously, I need to give way once or twice but most of us are anxious to make some progress on moving towards a judgment on this important Bill.

Nick Hurd: I know that the Minister wants to get on, but he acknowledged the challenge of the 2010 CO 2 reduction target. Will he take the opportunity to confirm that the Government will neither drop nor seek to adjust that target in the climate change review?

Malcolm Wicks: Our Kyoto obligations are absolutely clear. Indeed, our own targets are absolutely clear and we are committed to them.
	Micro-generation, as we have discovered, is a generic term for a suite of technologies that allow for the production of heat and electricity in close proximity to communities and to the consumer.

Jo Swinson: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes, because I was able to get out a whole sentence of my speech and it would be extremely churlish of me, given that I have a reached a full stop, not to stop momentarily.

Jo Swinson: I welcome the opportunity to put on record my support for the Bill, particularly its provisions on micro-generation. Does the Minister agree that, by generating their own electricity at home, people will understand how much energy they use and that that will motivate them to reduce their energy use, which is key to reducing emissions overall?

Malcolm Wicks: That is an important point. I shall touch on that briefly in a few moments.
	When we talk about micro-generation, we are talking about a range of technologies: solar power to heat water and produce electricity; harnessing the wind through individual micro-wind turbines; and using the earth's heat to heat our homes through ground source heat pumps. Energy efficiency involves a closely related family of measures, including, as was confirmed today, the thatched cottage, and it was useful to be reminded of that important example by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). We have an array of technologies that can make a significant contribution to our long-term targets for reducing carbon emissions. By exploiting our own natural resources, increased levels of micro-generation would reduce our reliance on imported fuel and contribute towards our objective of secure energy supplies. That issue requires more debate in the months to come, and I think that we shall achieve more debate.
	The Government have long recognised the potential of micro-generation, which is why I announced only last week a 30 million low-carbon buildings programme to support these technologies. In announcing the details, I was anxious to bridge any gap in funding that was of concern to the industry. That brings total Government funding for micro-generation installations to 83 million since 2002. Creating a sustainable market for those technologies will not be done solely through capital grant programmes, which is why we are developing a strategy for the promotion of micro-generation technologies to remove some of the wider barriers preventing widespread take-up.

David Heath: Will the Minister touch on the point that I raised with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) about the concern among people who use micro-generation water turbines that they could be brought within the compass of the non-domestic rate? Can he allay their fears?

Malcolm Wicks: My understanding is that business rate valuations do include renewable energy installations, but that business can benefit from the financial gains associated with renewable obligation certificates and levy exemption certificates. [Interruption.] On the domestic sideno, householders' own micro-generation would not make those individuals or households eligible for business rate. That is an important clarification.
	One important theme has been raised by one or two colleagues, such as the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). Many people watching their television screens and hearing about global warming could be forgivenalthough I am saying that they should not befor thinking that the future of the planet is by definition an issue for big people, such as presidents and prime ministers, and big institutions, such as the UN, the G8 and the rest. Of course it is an issue for those big players, but what my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East said is also important. He was once my Secretary of State, and I am rather in the habit of agreeing with him, so I am happy to agree with him on this important point. To use his phrase, this is about thinking globally and acting locally.
	When an individual or a community organisationa school, a church or a community centrestarts to invest in photovoltaics, say, or a micro wind turbine, they are not only making a contribution to their own energy supply but sending out a signal that they are taking responsibility. All of us as individualsthat would certainly be the case for us in the Houseare more part of the problem of the misuse of carbon than the solution, but micro-generation enables us, locally and as individuals, to start becoming part of the solution.
	Now I shall turn to some of the details of the Bill.

Martin Horwood: rose

Malcolm Wicks: I shall give way one more time, and then make some progress.

Martin Horwood: I would like to add my support for the Bill. Does the Minister agree that one of the barriers to popular participation in the technology is the cost, and that one of the valuable aspects of the Bill, as with the biofuels initiative this week, is that it will give a boost to the market, which will bring down the cost of these technologies and make them more affordable for more people?

Malcolm Wicks: That is right. The technologies are at the stage where television was, perhaps, in the first few months of production. Clearly, with growing popularity, there are economies of scale and cost reductions. If the Bill is passed by both Houses, that will show the will of Parliament, which in itself will make an important impact.
	Before I turn to specifics, let me make it clear that the Government support the key principles that underpin the Bill, but that we have concerns about some of the detail. However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith accepts the changes that I propose, I will be happy to work with himalthough I do not know where he is at the moment. [Interruption.] Oh, there he is. I wish to be his friend; I do not know why he is hiding from me. I shall be happy to work with him to get the Bill on to the statute book. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear!] Before we have too many Hear, hears, let me go into the detail.
	Clause 2 gives the Prime Minister a duty to table an annual report on progress towards meeting targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The UK already has an existing requirement to submit data to the EU on greenhouse gas emissions annually, so ensuring that the report is laid before Parliament would not be problematic. Indeed, we welcome the idea.
	Although the Government see no problem with the general thrust of the clause, however, we would not support a final version that required the Prime Minister, rather than a Secretary of State, to table the reportand we do not believe that there is a need for a resolution approving the report.

Bill Wiggin: The fact that the Prime Minister makes the report is one of the most important aspects of the Bill. The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated:
	We will not, on the basis of current policies alone, achieve our ambitious domestic goal of a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions.
	A few moments ago, the Minister said that the Government would. That is why it is so important for the Prime Minister to make the report.

Malcolm Wicks: The Prime Minister has led from the front both domestically and internationally on climate change. A report on micro-generation should, in our judgment, come from my Secretary of State rather than the Prime Minister.
	Clause 3 requires that Her Majesty's Treasury produce a fiscal and economic strategy for micro-generation and energy efficiency. As hon. Members will be aware, all consideration of fiscal measures is undertaken as part of the normal budgetary process, so a separate fiscal and economic strategy for micro-generation and energy efficiency is unnecessary and would risk prejudicing the outcome of the overall budgetary process. I should add that the Chancellor has asked the Government's chief economist, Nick Stern, to review climate change and economic instruments.

Norman Baker: I do not wish to take up too much time, but I want to return to the point about the Prime Minister. The reason why the Bill suggests that the report should be done by the Prime Minister, at least in name, is that responsibilities are set out in clause 2 for greenhouse gas emissionsnot just micro-generationwhich involve the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, among others. It is important to aim for cohesion and accountability across government. That is why the Prime Minister's involvement is an important aspect of the clause.

Malcolm Wicks: The Government could not be more joined up, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on issues surrounding climate change, energy efficiency and the rest. I do not believe that we should get into too much of a lather about who presents the report. I have explained why I think that it should be my Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman should beware of casting himself in the role of talking the Bill out by making too many interventions.
	Clauses 4 and 5 relate to the setting of national and local targets for micro-generation. Let me remind the House that the Government already have two targets to which micro-generation contributes: 10 per cent. of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2010 and 10 GW of combined heat and power capacity installed by 2010. A formal requirement to set targets for micro-generation would be premature at this stage.
	We recently held a consultation exercise on the development of our strategy to promote micro-generation and we are analysing the responses before putting together a package of measures in the final strategy. There are also difficulties associated with setting a realistic target for an industry that is still in its very early stages. However, I understand the importance of targets in providing long-term signals to the industry, particularly for those looking to make significant investments. Although we could not support the clause as drafted, the Government would accept an enabling power in relation to the setting of micro-generation targets.
	It goes without saying that we would report on the progress made in implementing our micro-generation strategy on a regular basis, so clause 6 poses no problems[Interruption.]

Angus MacNeil: I notice that the Minister has accepted the importance of finding ways and means of alleviating fuel poverty, to which clauses 1 and 6 relate. What specific extra measures do the Government propose, particularly for constituencies such as my own of Na h-Eileanan an Iar, which has some of the highest fuel poverty in the whole of the United Kingdom?

Malcolm Wicks: Fuel poverty is a crucial issue. In the context of the Bill, one of the issues that I wish to explore in detail over the coming months is how best to use micro-power to help to address the fuel poverty agenda. They are often seen as different subjects, but I do not think that they should be. We have heard about areas that may be off the gas mains and having to pay higher costs. We need to explore further how micro-generation and energy efficiency can play a part. I am rather with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
	Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State a duty to establish a scheme enabling the sale of electricity by domestic micro-generators. Such a scheme could then require electricity suppliers to buy at the market rate the electricity produced by their domestic customers by micro-generation. Micro-generators can already sell their electricity, so legislation is not required to achieve this. To require suppliers to buy that electricity at the market price risks distorting the electricity supply market and would be incompatible with our liberalised arrangements. This Government would like more suppliers to engage in the market for this exported electricity, perhaps through an obligation on them to offer terms, in a manner similar to their obligation to offer terms for supplying electricity to householders. So we are looking at this issue and I am anxious to make some progress on it, but I am unable to accept the clause as drafted.
	Clause 8 appears to put a duty on any public authority, including Ofgem, to have regard to the needs of micro-generators when carrying out any function relating to various green energy certificates. I have some concerns about imposing a specific duty on Ofgem in respect of micro-generation. It already has a clear set of duties that govern its work, including a duty to contribute to sustainable development. A requirement to have specific regard to the needs of micro-generators would inappropriately skew its focus toward this still relatively small section of the energy market. But the Government support the general thrust of this clause, in so far as it would encourage actions that help micro-generators to gain access to the benefits associated with green certificates, such as renewable obligation and levy exemption certificates.

Alistair Carmichael: On Ofgem's remit and possible changes to the Bill, the Minister and I have discussed informally the possibility of varying the cap arrangements in the Energy Act 2004 to allow Ofgem's transmission charging regime to work more favourably for projects in island communities. Can the Minister offer any prospect of using this Bill as a means to achieving that end?

Malcolm Wicks: Our policy is this area is still under review, but I hope to announce a conclusion in two pages' time. [Laughter.]
	Clause 9 gives the Secretary of State a duty to promote community energy. I am happy to say that this Government already do much to promote community energy schemes. The clear skies initiative provides funds for renewable installations in the community, and the new low carbon buildings programme will continue to fund such schemes.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am pleased to be able to put on the record my support for this Bill. Does the Minister accept that the enormous advances taking place in photovoltaics and solar energy research, particularly in respect of materials and efficiency, could bring costs down and support the development of community energy?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes, which is why we have supported photovoltaics and hope to do so in future. It is still a relatively expensive renewable technology, but we hope to see the developments that my hon. Friend describes.
	The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has provided 60 million for the community energy programme, which aims to increase the development and installation of community heating schemes throughout the UK, so our record on supporting community energy is clear. The imposition of a duty to promote community energy would not have any significant impact on our activities in this area, so we do not see the immediate need to include clause 9 in the Bill.
	Clause 10 enables the Secretary of State to introduce a renewable heat obligation. I am aware that the House has debated this subject at length, particularly during the passage of the Energy Act 2004. There is no doubt that we need to take action to support renewable heat, but it is important that that action be appropriate and effective. We have the evidence base provided by a recently published study on biomass, and by the recommendations of Sir Ben Gill's taskforce, to help us to provide suitable measures to promote renewable heat. At the moment, there is nothing to suggest that a renewable heat obligation is the definitive way forward, so to commit to such an obligation at this stage would be premature. We will of course look carefully at the possibility of introducing such an obligation alongside other policy options suggested in Sir Ben Gill's report, and we will be happy to discuss the matter with colleagues in Committee.

Michael Weir: Is the Minister prepared to accept that the Bill does not commit him to the renewable fuel obligation, but merely gives him the opportunity to bring it in? If the Bill is passed and he decides in his wisdomas he shouldthat the renewable fuel obligation is necessary, he will have the power to bring it in without further legislation. Will he not reconsider on that point?

Malcolm Wicks: We can discuss that in Committee, as much of the Bill needs to be discussed.
	It has been brought to my attention that when we were discussing whether the Prime Minister himself or the Secretary of State should table the report, I referred to my own Secretary of State, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is evidence of the fact that we are so joined at the hip on these issues that I should, of course, have referred to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Frankly, we DTI Ministers are so often in and out of DEFRA that I sometimes forget which Department I am a member ofsuch is the extraordinary joined-up-ness of this Administration.
	Hon. Members will be aware that my Department has been in the process of reviewing the renewables obligation. Some measures included in the preliminary consultation, and now the statutory consultation, require primary legislation to be tabled. They are aimed at making it easier for micro-generators to benefit from the obligation. They will make it easier for agents to handle much of the administrative process on behalf of householders who wish to claim renewable obligation certificates for the electricity that they generate. They will also remove the need for micro-generators to have a sale-and-buyback agreement in place with their electricity supplier before they can claim their obligation certificates, which are known, in the jargon, as ROCs. That will help to make the whole process a lot smoother. The Bill seems an appropriate piece of legislation in which the Government can make those changes at the earliest opportunity.

Betty Williams: I fully support this excellent Bill, but will my hon. Friend undertake to hold close discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government about its progress and any developments?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith will also hold such discussions.

Mark Harper: Will the Minister give way?

Hon. Members: No!

Malcolm Wicks: Well, very briefly.

Mark Harper: I am a little confused about whether the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) supported the Bill in the form promoted by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) or as filleted by the Minister.

Malcolm Wicks: Yes. There is a difference between effective parliamentary scrutiny and speaking for the sake of it.
	Another issue subject to recent consultation is the adjustment of transmission charges for renewable generators in the north of Scotland. In March, we announced our intention to use the power in the Energy Act 2004 to make such adjustments with respect to renewable generators in Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles. Since then, I have had an opportunity to consider these matters with many hon. Members and a welcome chance to visit delegations from those islands. As things stand, the power in the Energy Act enables us only to adjust charges until 2014, but the long lead time for developing projects on the islands mean that they will not be in operation until early in the next decade and would derive only minimal benefit from a scheme ending in 2014. Extending the scheme to 2024 would provide additional support to island projects and bring environmental and economic benefits to those important island communities. The Bill once again provides an opening to make the required legislative change at the earliest opportunity, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith is in accord with that.

Alistair Carmichael: I welcome most warmly the announcement that the Minister has just made, which will make a significant difference to the development of renewable projects in the island communities. If we have a successful and happy conclusion to the Bill, which I certainly hope for, may I urge on him an early imposition of that power?

Malcolm Wicks: That will be subject to the will of the House and the other place, but I also hope that that will happen.
	I wish to say a quick word about the application of the Bill to the devolved Administrations, which I know my hon. Friend has been considering. As it stands, aspects of the Bill legislate for Scotland in devolved policy areas or impact on functions exercised by Ministers of the Scottish Executive. My hon. Friend will have discussions on the issues, but if he does not secure agreement amendments will be required in Committee to exclude Scotland from the provisions of the Bill where necessary. I am sure that that will not happen. It would be curious if a Bill introduced by a Scottish MP would benefit Croydon but not his constituency, and I suspect that he will be able to reach agreement on the issues. That is a matter for him, but we will do our best to help.
	In conclusion, the Government are pleased to offer overall support, subject to the caveats that I have outlined. We see an opportunity for the Bill to include further clauses that would help to tackle climate change and energy supply. We look forward to working with my hon. Friend and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Eric Forth: I confess that I was minded to seek to divide the House on this Bill because I have grave reservations about it, as I will explain. However, having heard what the Minister said, I do not think that that will be necessary at this stage. I would be content for the Bill to receive a Second Reading as it will be important for the Committee to give thought to what the Minister has saidit certainly attracted meand we can spend productive time on Report and then decide whether to let the Bill make further progress.
	However, the House would not expect me to allow this opportunity to pass without making a few remarks about aspects of climate change. I take as my texts today a letter from the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, the report by the excellent Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords and the excellent work by Mr. Bjorn Lomborg, The Sceptical Environmentalist, which I highly recommend to hon. Members. I shall first set the scenarioa much loved word by environmentalistsfor the debate and then move on to some consideration of the Bill. I shall touch briefly on mitigation versus adaptation, multilateral versus unilateral action, developed versus developing countries, and the role of technology in the response to climate change.
	I shall start with an excellent letter, which I received in reply to one that I had written on behalf of a constituent, from the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, joined at the hip as he is to the Minister in his place today. They are undoubtedly inseparable. The letter mainly concentrates on the effects of climate change on sea levels. The first thing that caught my eye was the statement:
	Relative sea level in the Thames estuary will continue to rise by between 26 and 86 cm by the 2080s.
	In many ways, that statement encapsulates the problem that we face as we discuss climate change and its possible impact. A range of possibility between 26 cm and 86 cm may not sound very much, but it is a crucial difference for all of us, especially those living in coastal and low-lying areas, to say nothing of those living in countries such as the Maldives, which I had the pleasure and privilege of visiting on behalf of the House just last year. That range of possibility should give us all pause for thought. I shall return to that theme later.
	One of the great problems of rushing like Gadarene swine to support anything labelled global warming, climate change or emissions is that so much uncertainty surrounds the analysis. We should be extremely cautious about rushing towards solutions such as those proposed in the Bill. That is why I welcomed the Minister for Energy's rather more cautious approach. Although it is fashionable in such Billsgenerated, as they usually are, by rather narrow single-interest groupsto try to solve many problems by legislation and to try to pin the Government of the day down to the certainties that many people want, the reality, as the Minister pointed out, is that life simply is not like that. It is certainly not like that when we start with such a wide range of possibilities in the analysis, before we can even consider the solutions.
	The letter referred to Greenland ice sheet melt, stating that
	even if begun in this century, it would take up to 3000 years to melt and thus raise sea levels by 6 metres in total on a time scale of millennia.
	That strikes me as an extraordinarily long perspective, even for this Government. Many boasts are made about long-term targets, but I should be extremely impressed if we were adopting targets with a 3,000-year perspective. The Minister continued, a little more percipiently, that
	a total loss of the western Antarctic ice sheet would raise global sea levels by an average of 6 metres
	although he noted that it was unlikely to occur in the next 200 years. We must bear such time perspectives in mind as we talk about relatively ready solutions to what are deemed to be their causes.
	I shall return to those arguments when I touch on the comparisons that we must take into account between the developed and the developing world. As I shall say later, it is one thing to make arguments about the solutions to such alleged problems as emissions and carbon dioxide in the context of our society, our relative wealth and the sort of sacrifice that we might have to make in our standard of living, or indeed in our economic growth; but it is quite another thing when we try to impose the same solutions on the developing world, where people have much less scope, in terms of either economic growth or standards of living, to deal with the problems.

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend may be aware of the discussions about the economic impact of changes in the UK compared with the effects of climate change on the development of the Chinese and Indian economies. Will he bear that in mind as he continues his remarks?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will not be surprised to learn that I intend to touch on that point somewhat later in my remarks; it is an important element in what we should be considering. Rather than looking at the narrow perspective that Bills such as this inevitably force us to take, we must bear in mindmust we not?how far it will be effective in the context of global warming and global climate change for us as a country to introduce such measures. They may disadvantageously prejudice our people's standard of living or affect our economic growth, but how far is that likely to affect global emissions and global warming, given the huge developmental prospects of, in particular, China, south-east Asia and India? I may return to that point later.
	I want to quote further from the excellent letter from the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. He said:
	The UK seeks to act and to persuade others to act
	the persuasion of others to act is key to the point that my hon. Friend has just made
	by cutting emissions and by developing sustainable adaptation strategies.
	I shall refer to adaptation later. The Minister continues:
	Many other areas of policy in other Government departments now incorporate a climate change perspective, including water resources, building regulations
	very much the subject of the Bill and, indeed, the next one, should we come to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which will require extremely close scrutiny given its implications
	health, agriculture, forestry, conservation and international development.
	International developmentI give the Government all credit for acknowledging both the scope and scale of the problems that the Bill addresses and the international context in which it inevitably should be considered.
	That is why I felt that this letter was very timely. Indeed, it is absolutely hot off the press; it is dated 7 November. It even says Dear Eric at the top, so although I cannot claim to be quite as close to the Minister of State as is the Minister with us today, I am obviously on pretty intimate terms with him. He has written to me very warmly, and he has even signed it Yours, Elliot. So he and I are obviously very much at one in all of this, and I am most grateful to him for writing to me just in time for today's debate. It has been very timely and very useful.
	Because I do not want to sound at all negative today, Mr. Deputy Speakeryou know that that would be completely uncharacteristic of me on a FridayI want to continue to be warm and positive about the Government. The Minister is starting to look slightly uncomfortable, but I shall ladle on a bit more praise just to rub it in. The hon. Gentleman then goes onthis is the other Minister, my friend Elliotto say:
	The Government set up the UK climate impacts programme in 1997 to encourage private and public sector organisations to assess their vulnerability to climate change so that they can plan their own adaptation strategies.
	I could not have put it better myself. That is the sort of approach that we should be encouraging, not the heavy-handed approach that we get so oftenbring in a Bill, pass a law, introduce targets, make regulations, introduce penaltieswhich is an approach apparently so much beloved of everybody, including, I am really sorry to say, my own friends on the Front Bench. I am sorry that they should reach so readily for this sort of approach to a problem so widely perceived, instead of the imaginative and positive approach that the Government adopted in 1997, which talks about encouraging the public and private sectors to plan their own strategies. That strikes me as reflecting much more of modern Conservatism than the heavy-handed legislative approach that we have before us today.
	My next text, having skimmed lightly over the Minister's letter, is the House of Lords report. So that there is no doubt anywhere, it is the Select Committee on Economic Affairs second report of Session 200506, entitled The Economics of Climate Change. I recommend it most highly to Members of the House and people beyond.
	I should like to offer to the House a number of key passages in the report because they bear very much on the thrust of the Bill. The first is from paragraph 45, which says that
	nearly all of the public debate on global warming is about mitigationreducing emissionsrather than about adapting to climate change and assisting the most vulnerable societies in the world to adapt to the risk they may face.
	In today's debate we have heard the cosy unanimity of people no doubt wound up by single-interest groups and postcards from certain organisationsthere is nothing wrong with that at all, provided we put them very much in context. But the debate we should be having today is about mitigation versus adaptation, particularly with regard to the developing world.
	The excellent Professor Lomborg made a point on this very effectively. He has argued at great lengthI am tempted, but I probably will not quote too much from him, you may be relieved to hear, Mr. Deputy Speakerthat attempts at mitigation, in other words controlled emissions and all that go with that, are at best a very long-term strategy and may or may not be effective, whereas adaptation can be done much more quickly and much more efficaciously, certainly in terms of, for example, flood protection. He says, as did the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment in his letter, although I did not quote that bit, that we are used to adaptation in this country. One only has to ask the good people of the Netherlands about adaptation; they have been doing it for centuries. That makes the point that it is often much more effective to seek to adapt to the effects, claimed or actual, of climate change over a long period than it is to mitigate through the sort of Kyoto approach that we are all supposed to have signed up to. So there is the first very important contribution that the House of Lords report makes.
	Then, because most of what their lordships talk about is the link between economic activity and emissions, they point out at paragraph 51 that any analysis of that has to encompass all the following factors:
	population change, rates of economic growth, the stage of economic development
	that is, whether heavy industry or service-based
	the type of energy used to 'fuel' the economy, energy efficiency . . . and technology.
	That is a formidable array of variables, which we should take into account when making our analysis. I have heard nothing of that today. All that we have heard today is the suggestion that we should make a glib assumption about the source of emissions and their alleged causal effect on global warming and nothing of the required analysis of the vital links that their lordships point out.
	Their lordships go on to tell us something even more worrying. Paragraph 72 states:
	We received a significant amount of evidence on the realism of . . . emissions scenarios, and doubts were raised, particularly about the high emissions scenarios. The balance of this evidence suggests to us that the high emissions scenarios contained some questionable assumptions and outcomes.
	Again, that takes us into the important area of considering which of the very sophisticated computer models and analyses we choose to believe or should believe. Those things are important because the range of variation is considerable. For example, estimates of the increase in sea level can range from 1.5 cm to 4.5 cm. That very wide range of possibilities can lead to all sorts of different conclusions, depending on which estimate one chooses to believe.
	Their lordships return to that theme over and again. For example, I return to paragraph 13, where they say:
	No one disputes the fact of temperature rise in the last 100 years or so. No one disputes that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and few dispute that it has an enhanced 'greenhouse effect'. What is disputed, albeit by a minority of scientists, is the scale of this effect.
	They go on to say that some of the scientists suggest that the models on which the predictions are based are biased upwards and
	while warming will occur, it may well be at the lower end of the IPCC spectrum that is relevant, not the upper limits.
	So there is an important difference of opinion among the scientific community about what is the reality of the predications of global warming that results from emissions.
	In all those important ways, we have considerable work to do in establishing beyond doubt exactly what is the cause of global warming and what its extent will be, and, crucially, what our reaction to it should be. In that context, I have grave doubts about the Bill because I am not convinced that it necessarily addresses the right problem or that it does so in the right way. We are entitled to be somewhat sceptical about it. That deals with mitigation versus adaptation.
	I want briefly to touch on the other very obvious fact that we must take into account: multilateral versus unilateral action. As has been said already, it is assumed that although we are a small country in the global context, if we do all sorts of sexy, interesting, exciting, good and heat-warming things about emissions, we will surely have either an effect on global warming itself or some sort of influence on other countries to do the same. Sadly, there is not much evidence to that effect so far.
	I share the scepticism that has been expressed about the Kyoto arrangements in any case. However, the fact that countries as important as the United States and Australia have not signed up to those arrangements anyway and given that it is almost certain that the bulk of emissions in the foreseeable and distant future will be caused by economic growth and development in China, south-east Asia, India and, probably, Africa as well, it should give one pause for thought about how effective what we are doing in this country is likely to be.

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend might perhaps have been as concerned as I was recently during the informal European summit at Hampton Court a few weeks ago, when the Prime Minister referred to putting much more emphasis in our energy policy on working with European partners. The reason why I amconcernedparticularly in this multilateral, international contextis that it is very clear that the European Union constitutes one of the brakes on having a successful trade negotiation because of its attitude to the lack of agricultural reform. I would be very concerned, given the importance of persuading countries such as China and India, if too much of our energy policy were dependent on getting the whole of Europe moving in the same direction, given the negative effects that we have seen in our trade negotiations.

Eric Forth: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who refers to other factors that will inevitably be crucial. We must make a series of important decisions. The first is: what is the best vehicle by which we can try to take decisions and move the issue forward? Is it us alone, is it us through the European Union, is it us with our English-speaking friends, is it us with the Commonwealth or is it in some more global context?
	For example, should we be seeking to link the issues of adaptation to climate change to trade negotiations or to technology transfer? Surely spending more resources in the wealthy world on research and development is key to developing the technologies that would enable us and, crucially, developing countries to respond to the problems caused by climate change. All those factors are crucial. Like, I suspect, my hon. Friend, I see no sign of any of that taking place. Instead, our country is acting in an uncharacteristically blinkered, inward-looking and narrow way. We congratulate ourselves on what we are doing, but neglect all the other factors that will eventually be much more crucial. Why are we not having a debate about what we should be doing in terms of technology development, technology transfer and helping the developing world to look more to adaptation as much as to the mitigation of climate change through considering emissions? There is a whole policy area that we have barely touched on.
	Whether the technologies that we are talking about make sense is another issue for consideration. Too many rather easy assumptions are made about the efficacy of different types of technology. Unusually todayperhaps because they are not explicitly referred to in the Billwe have not heard too much about some of the more exotic technologies. However, I have always had severe doubts about a range of possibilities in renewables and how efficacious they will be. I will touch on that point when I consider the Bill, which I shall come to shortly.
	I wonder whether the focus is necessarily right. One of the great problems in this debate is that, as with many other things, one gets trends and then trendy ideas. Things emerge that are made to sound attractive and people latch on to them. We then make a great mistake in that they are portrayed as being the answer to the problem or one of the answers to it. Sadly, that rarely turns out to be the case.
	I remember when I still worked in the real world back in the 1970s. I was involved in a small company that was trying to play its part in developing solar energy in this country. Of course, the technology was in its early stages then, but it became fairly obvious that, in a climate such as ours, solar energy was probably unlikely to be the answer to the problems as we saw them at the time. The technology has moved on but, sadly, our climate has not changed very much at all.
	That raises another intriguing possibility that I shall touch on in passing and that is not often discussed. There can be positive effects of global warming in a number of interesting and different ways. Global warming is nearly always portrayed as being negative, as having the most horrendous effects in all sorts of areas. However, most of the analyses seem to demonstrate thatwhether in terms of agriculture or, in many countries, in terms of health or many other waysa degree of global warming may not necessarily be that bad a thing.

Norman Baker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Fascinating though this discourse is, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has been speaking for 20 minutes and has yet to refer to a single proposal in the Bill. Is that in order?

Madam Deputy Speaker: We are debating the Bill's Second Reading and the right hon. Gentleman is setting the background. However, I am sure that he is about to come on to the Bill very shortly.

Eric Forth: I forgive the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) for his impatience, but as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact that the Bill refers to combating climate change gives a fair degree of scope for a discussion of the very concept of climate change. The hon. Gentleman must have learned a lot already from what I have been sayinghe is about to learn a lot more.
	I shall get on to the Bill now; not because the hon. Gentleman asked me to, but because you suggested that I might, Madam Deputy Speaker. It will take me a little while, but the hon. Gentleman should relax because I have already said that I do not intend to try to divide the House today. I do not think that anyone else is likely to do that, so the odds are that the Bill will get its Second Reading. He should not irritate me too much, because if he does I might change my mind on that, too. He would then take the blame for the Bill going nowhere, not me. He ought to be very careful.
	I take exception to considerable aspects of the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that I have said that I was somewhat relieved by the Minister's excellent response to it. I look forward to reading the amendments that he and his colleagues will try to make in Committee, and I shall have a good look at the Bill when it emerges from Committee. If it is okay, I am sure that it will get through Report and Third Reading just fine, but if there is much that the Minister has not tried to change, we will have to have a jolly good go at it on Reportthat will be a fascinating day for us.
	My first problem with the Bill is the vexed issue of fuel poverty. I must confess that I have always thought that the concept of fuel poverty is complete nonsense. It is of course trendy, and I think that even Conservative Front Benchers have signed up to it for reasons that I will not begin to understand.

Michael Fabricant: Because we are trendy.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend says, Because we are trendyhe should know better than most.
	Why do we talk about fuel poverty, but not about food poverty, clothing poverty or other aspects of poverty? Households have an income. Many households have an income provided solely by the state. People in households have to make decisions about how they dispose of that income, such as whether to spend it on clothing, food, cigarettes, beer, bingo, or fuel. It is bizarre to single out an alleged problem with fuel, but not those other discretionary expenditures.
	The situation is even more bizarre when one considers the huge variation in the circumstances that must inevitably exist in households and the difference in people's attitudes to such matters. For example, some people might keep their heating turned on all the time, or too much of the time, and thus waste fuel. I know of no sensible way of measuring each person's use of fuel, whether that is responsible or not. I know of no means through which even this intrusive Government can measure people's individual lifestyles and the way in which they choose to spend their money on different aspects of discretionary or necessary expenditure. The whole concept of fuel poverty is thus total nonsense, so why we persist in including it in legislation is completely beyond my comprehension.
	Before anybody springs up and says, But what about the fuel handout that people get from this generous Government?, let me point out that that payment is even more ridiculous. I suspect that many households do not spend the fuel handout on fuel at all. I will not ask hon. Members to reveal too much of what they know about how some people spend their Government, or taxpayer, fuel moneylet us not go too far into that; suffice it to say that the payment itself was an absurd response to a perceived, yet completely false, problem. My first difficulty with the Bill is the fact that it repeats the nonsense of fuel poverty yet again and claims to provide a response to it.
	Clause 1(1) says that the Bill's principal purpose is combating climate change, which is a phrase to which I referred earlier. Clause 1(2) says:
	In performing functions under this Act, the relevant persons and bodies shall have regard to  . . . the principal purpose set out in subsection (1)  . . . the desirability of alleviating fuel poverty
	I have touched on that
	and  . . . the desirability of securing a diverse and viable long-term energy supply.
	I can sign up to that. It is something in the Bill that I can support. It does not mean very much, but the desirability of securing a diverse and viable long-term energy supply is an admirable aspiration to which even I can sign up.

Bill Wiggin: Oh good.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend on the Front Bench is as enthusiastic as I am. Whether he or anybody else can explain what it means is another matter, as is the way of bringing it about. It is an aspirationthe sort of thing that increasingly finds its way into legislation but takes us almost nowhere. I know that the matter is of long-standing interest to the hon. Member for Lewes, but he knows from his time in the House of the number of measures that have been passed over the years with fairly modest outcomes.
	Such wording makes me feel a little guilty about what we do here. If anybody read the Bill or anyone other than the members of the single-interest groups who drafted it took it remotely seriously, there is a danger of their thinking, Oh boy, isn't life going to get better! Inevitably, they will be let down because life will not get better in any measurable way in the foreseeable future as a result of the Bill.

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend makes a serious point. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr.   Hollobone) specifically drew attention to the importance of the issue to younger voters. It does not set a good example to younger voters if expectations are greatly raised by promising all sorts of marvellous eventualities through passing such a Bill, only for them to be dashed, thus creating cynicism about politics and scepticism about positive change.

Eric Forth: I share my hon. Friend's view and I worry about the propagandisation of our young people by teachers, whether through Make Poverty History or climate change and so on. I worry that teachers appear to be all too willing to express their views to young and impressionable people, get those young people to sign petitions or whatever and thus give them expectations that will inevitably be disappointed, probably leading to the effect that my hon. Friend described. I could not agree with him more.
	Clause 2 led to an interesting divergence of view between the promoter and the Minister for Energy. I am rather on the Minister's side. It is not right to imply that any Prime Minister should be so involved in the detail of every Department's work that he has to answer for it. I should declare an interest: in the dim and distant past, I was a junior Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry and I therefore have a sort of affection for and loyalty to it. Partly because of that, I believe that Departments should be prepared to stand up for what they do. Secretaries of State should be responsible for their actions and those of their Departments. They should be the ones to accountif account is necessaryto the House. Attempts to draw in the Prime Minister and, even worse, to give him a sense of omniscience and omnipotence, which he knows that he has but the rest of us now know that he does not possess, are not the right way forward. I am therefore with the Minister on the matter and I hope that the Bill emerges from Committee without that aspect.
	Clause 2 provides for laying before Parliamentby we know not whom yeta report on
	steps that the government has taken to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases during the period to which the report relates.
	Could that be a zero report? Could it simply state, None, and leave it at that? I am sure that the implication of the provision is that a report can have meaning only if it says something. Worthy officials in Departments are often tasked by Ministers with writing about something that the Department has achieved in the past year. A 10-point action plan usually emergesthat used to be the favourite in my day, although I do not know whether inflation has had an effect over the years. The first one or two points were barely credible and the following eight were almost laughable, but the 10-point action plan was supposed to get the Minister and the Department off the hook. My fear about clause 2 is that it would give rise to that phenomenon all too readily. That would be regrettable.

Mark Harper: It is interesting that clause 2(1) has two paragraphs. It provides for the Prime Minister or whichever Minister to report on the steps that have been takenthe inputsand the levels of emissions of greenhouse gases, which constitute the outputs. In most Government policies, Ministers tend to focus on the inputs and spend much less time on the genuine outcomes that affect our constituents. Is not the danger that a report of that nature would have lot of content about such activityas my right hon. Friend says from his great experience in government, civil servants are good at making those parts of the report lengthyand would probably say little about the reality that affects our constituents?

Eric Forth: That is a good point, but the position is more difficult. A mere global report on UK emissions, however measuredabout which I always have some scepticismsays little to my hon. Friend's constituents or mine. Surely we must talk about regional if not local variations. I am sure that emissions in central London are rather different from those in Forest of Dean, for example.

Mark Harper: I would hope so.

Eric Forth: As my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, he would hope so. Nevertheless, if we want to have the effect that he has described, the reporting, if we are to take it seriously, would have to be much more detailed than that suggested in the Bill. Perhaps a positive amendment can be made to the Bill in Committee to have reporting at a local or communitywhich is a much more trendy words these dayslevel, to make it more meaningful to all those people out there who are literally gasping for information on the subject.
	Clause 2(2) gets even murkier. Under it, the Prime Minister must lay the report before Parliament and make a motion for a resolution to approve it. I am all for endless reports being laid before Parliamentit gives MPs something to do and to read. I benefited enormously from the report from their lordships to which I referred earlier. Who am I to criticise reports laid before Parliament? I wish that they were all as good as that one.
	We get into difficulties, however, if it is suggested that the report should give rise to a motion for a resolution of approval. That implies a number of things. There would have to be a vote on the report. Would that be subject to whipping? A huge advance has been made recently in parliamentary accountability, as we now know that whipping, even on Government Members, is much less effective than it used to be. Therefore, perhaps the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) hopes that if a report of this kind emerged to which he and his hon. Friends did not give much approval, they would feel free to vote against it, even if his hon. Friend the Minister said, I want you to approve of this report because it indicates my 10-point action plan, which I hope will gain your approval. But if the hon. Gentleman said, No, I'm not fooled by that, I want to vote against it, would it be a whipped vote? Would there be rebels on the Government Benches? Would it be another occasion for Government embarrassment? I do not know.
	The position would be worse than that, however, because the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith wants the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. He need not hesitate to intervene on my speech, as it will not continue until anything close to 2.30, and his Bill is perfectly safe, certainly from meI give him that undertaking now. There will be no Division, and this part of the proceedings will be finished well before 2.30, so if he wants to engage in dialogue, I invite him to do so. What would happen, however, if both Houses voted against the report, or one voted for and one against? I have never seen where that takes us in terms of dealing with climate change, emissions or anything else in a parliamentary sense. I do not see how it would even concentrate the Government's mind much. We might consider the provisions critically in Committee, and examine whether another mechanism can be found, such as a report, by all means, or even referring it to a Select Committee, by all means, but putting such a provision in a Bill that has pretensions to be a statute is not very helpful or productive.

Mark Harper: Someone of a mischievous turn of mind might even think that a motion for a resolution in both Houses is probably not helpful. Now that Labour forms the largest party in the other place, the Government could arrange for the two Houses to come up with opposite conclusions to provide the Government with some cover in their deliberations.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is right. What he says illustrates that we must not treat parliamentary processes of this kind in a light-hearted way, or assume that they will produce the outcomes that we want. That is really what I am saying. Much closer examination will be needed in Committee.
	Clause 2(4) helpfully spells out the meaning of the term greenhouse gases. It lists carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. My problem is this: are we satisfied that we have sufficiently reliable techniques to measure those gases in a meaningful way that would be helpful to the report? I should like to be reassured, but I have grave doubts. Some of the gases may well be subject to reasonably accurate measurements, whether locally or nationally, but I wonder whether they all are.
	There is a danger that we are entering the territory of flaky measurements. I made a passing reference to doubts even about the global scenarios involving the effects of emissions on climate change, and global warming. I have equal doubts, even at this micro-levelthe national or local levelabout the likely accuracy of the measurements, and about what conclusions we shall be able to draw from them.

Justine Greening: My right hon. Friend makes the valid point that if we are to report on emissions, we need to be certain about what we are trying to achieve. A problem with noise monitoring near Heathrow, for instance, is deciding whether to measure average levels or peaks and troughs. We need to know what we want to understand from our information before we spend a lot of money on collecting it.

Eric Forth: There is that and more. Time lines would be involved as well. At what times of day might the emissions occur, or during which seasons of the year? What extraneous factors might be causing variations ona daily, hourly or seasonal basis? All those considerations are relevant, but the trouble with the way in which the Bill tries to deal with them is that they tend to be glossed over. That is why I have reservations about the Bill. We would not know how such issues would be dealt with until the regulations underpinning the Bill emerged, were it ever to become an Act.
	I am sure that the Minister has already given some thought to another question that may arise in Committee, for all I know. Have we any idea of the likely thrust or breadth of the regulations that would be required to underpin these rather wide provisions, or of how effective they might be? I shall leave the Minister to ponder that. He need not present his 10-point plan now, but the issues will inevitably prove to be relevant.
	Wisely, in my view, the Minister did what the Treasury bade him do, and said Not on your life when it came to clause 3. The clause seeks to do that worst of all possible thingsto dictate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he must do and how he must respond. I should have thought that even the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith would have been a bit wary of doing that, but he has been very bold, stating:
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer must
	Good Lord! That is pretty brave stuff nowadays, in the new model Labour party.
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within one year of the passing of this Act, and annually thereafter, prepare and publish a report on such fiscal measures he considers appropriate.
	That constitutes an unwarranted intrusion on the Treasury's freedom of action, and its imperial position in the Government. No wonder the Minister told his hon. Friend that the clause would disappear silently into the night and the fastnesses of the Committee, and had no chance of re-emerging in any form. The Chancellor's hand cannot be tied in that way in an Act of Parliament. Such action would be ridiculous. I rather agree with the Minister that we cannot allow this sort of attempt to tell the Chancellor what he will or will not do.
	That is not to say that the Chancellor may not from year to year, joined at the hip as he is with his colleagues not just at the Department of Trade and Industry but, as we now learn, at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsI do not know how many hips there are in the Government.

Malcolm Wicks: It is a hippy Government.

Eric Forth: Quite right.
	Of course, it would be open to the relevant Departments to persuade the Chancellor from time to time to take such measures as he deemed were efficacious in promoting the aims of the Bill. That would be a normal process of government. All these fancy reports, were they to be produced, might have an influence on the Chancellor of the day. There is nothing wrong with that, but for the Bill to seek to pre-empt the Chancellor, of all people, is entirely wrong-headed.
	Clause 3 goes on to say:
	In preparing the report . . . the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall take reasonable steps to consult local authorities
	that may be all right, except that there is an awful lot of them
	and such persons as in his opinion have an interest in
	the aims of the Bill. What does that phrase mean? I wonder whether these shady interest groups lie behind that sort of thing. They probably played a large part in drafting this Bill and no doubt they sent endless postcards to hapless MPs. It could not possibly be them, could it? However, is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith seriously suggesting that the Chancellor is going to have to consult self-appointed interest groups that have an interest in
	enhancing the United Kingdom contribution to combating climate change,
	whatever that may mean? I can just imagine the Chancellor grovelling to some interest group, saying, I hope that I have pleased you in doing what I am going to do and persuaded you that we are doing everything we can to enhance the UK contribution.
	The clause goes on to our old friend alleviating fuel poverty, about which I have said almost enough. I may return to it, but at least I got that off my chest.
	Then we come on to good old micro-generation, the trendy word of the moment. This has been the day for micro-generation. If nothing else, this debate has brought micro-generation blinking into the sunlightwith the photovoltaic effects that go with it, no doubt. I have no problem with that. As a concept, I am sure that it is perfectly good. Many right hon. and hon. Members have praised micro-generation as a concept, saying what a wonderful contribution it would make, but my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) raised some practical and important questions about how that new mechanism would work. I wanted to add one or two of my own, while endorsing what he said.
	I worry about the implications for planning, safety and other related issues when one starts to talk about the possibility of household and even of community-based generation systems, because they can, in different ways, have important implications. What bothers me is that, under the Bill, we would have to make significant changes to our planning regime and possibly to the health and safety regime. Are we content that individual householders will have sufficient knowledge or experience to manage the technologies and the potential hazards of micro-generation in their own properties? That bothers me. There has been much encouraging but, frankly, rather loose talk about how wonderful these technologies are, where they will take us and what they will do. I am not personally satisfied that any of those questions have been raised, never mind answered.
	It goes back to the question that I asked the promoter of the Bill. He was very honest, as typically he is, when I asked him whether he had made any estimate of the proportion of our total national energy needs that may be provided by micro-generation. I think that he said that the upper limit would be 10 per cent. I suspect that the lower limit would be a fraction of that. There is nothing wrong with that. In its place, it would be valuable no doubt, but when we are talking about a contribution of that limited nature, we are duty bound to look at the possible negative effects, particularly when talking about households, private property, children and other vulnerable people, who may not be able to handle what would be required in making such a contribution. Therefore, there are a lot of serious doubts about that, which have not been addressed or answered at all.
	Under the Bill, another report will be published, which will contain
	such information as the Secretary of State
	now the Secretary of State will be allowed to make a report; it is no longer the Prime Minister, so we are moving in the right direction
	considers appropriate relating to the expected contribution towards meeting the target to be made by each of the relevant sources of energy and technologies.
	The next subsection says:
	It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to take such steps as he considers necessary to secure that the target established . . . is met.
	That raises a number of interesting questions, especially when we look at the definition of micro-generation, and the sort of energy sources that, as I understand it, it includes. They are: biomass, biofuels, fuel cells, photovoltaics, water including waves and tides, wind, solar power, geothermal power, combined heat and power, and so on. I am intrigued as to how we would reasonably target the contribution that each of those would be expected to make in the context of micro-generation, and even more intrigued as to what steps the Secretary of State would be likely to take to secure that those targets were met.
	Targets have already been mentioned in passing today, and I think that there is a growing cynicism about targets as a technique. Let me say immediately that I am not suggesting that the Government of whom I was proud and privileged to be a member did not do the targeting thing as well. We didand we usually regretted it, I suspect. But it is the present Government who, since 1997, have been particularly prone to setting targets.
	The fundamental question about targets is: if we set them too high and fail to meet them, what do we doconfess failure or reduce the target? There are a number of examples of that. And if we set them too low and exceed them, what was the point of them anyway? I question what role targeting has to play in important areas of public policy.
	Here is a perfect example. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith seems to be serious about targeting each and every one of those rather obscure and esoteric headings that I listed, and making some judgment about what they could or should be, why the target has not been met, and what the Secretary of State is supposed to do about it. What is the Secretary of State supposed to dopass another law making the targets mandatory? Introduce fiscal incentives? Introduce penalties for not doing the right thing? I have no idea; nor, I suspect in my heart of hearts, has the promoter of the Bill. I suspect that he does not have much idea of what that would really mean, case by case, on the ground, for each of those elements.
	Now we come to local targets for micro-generation. We are getting down to local level, community level, or whatever you want to call it, and we are introducing further complications in the process. Perhaps understandably, it is has been realised that there is not much point in trying to deal with such matters at national level, given the huge variations within this very small nation of ours.
	The islands of Scotland were mentioned earlier, and the contribution that they could make. The Minister responded favourably and encouragingly to that idea, I thought, and seemed to please some of our colleagues from that part of the country. But how different that is from East Anglia and the west country, the south-east of England and the Isle of Wight. There is a strong case to be made for breaking the strategy down into local or regional areas, looking at their performance and their needs, and at the effect that different climates have on wind generation, solar power or whatever. I have no objection to that as such.

Justine Greening: My right hon. Friend is pursuing a valid line. Our experience in Londonfor example, with local targets for recyclinghas produced far more creativity in places such as Wandsworth, where we have one of the highest recycling rates in the country. Local targets start to allow some sort of competition and creativity to emerge, from which broader conclusions can be drawn about what will be successful and what will not.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Her local authority, and mine in Bromley, of course, being Conservative-controlled, have an excellent record in such matters, and are in the forefront of dealing responsibly with environmental issues. It is not for nothing that we call Bromley clean and green. And we do it in a sensible and progressive way

Mark Harper: rose

Eric Forth: The Forest of Dean, no doubt, has a contribution to make, and I am delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.

Mark Harper: The Forest of Dean is also clean and green. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) are making an important point, which has been echoed on both sides of the House. As far as local government is concerned, it sounds as though many local authorities are already reacting responsibly to local demand and a number of innovative schemes have already been implemented. Given that these issues are said to be at the top of many people's priorities, if those schemes are already happening in areas where the local electorate desire them, perhaps we could argue that the clause is unnecessary.

Eric Forth: That relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening). There is indeed a strong case for saying that responsible local authorities should be free to take their own decisions on these matters and should be accountable to their own voters for what they do. The dissemination of good practice, if nothing else, should then be sufficient to drive these matters forward, rather than endlessly looking for legislation, targets and compulsion from the centre. All too often, that seems to be the fashion these days. We are probably on to an important point here and I hope that the Committee will look closely at the implications of the rather innocuous-sounding local targets phrase in the title of clause 5.
	Now we come on to yet another reportwe seem to be knee deep in reports. As an aside, I am sure that the same sort of people who are keen about the problems of climate change, emissions and so forth are probably equally keen and concerned about deforestation and excessive use of paper. Yet this very Bill will itself generate a huge amount of governmental paper and reports. There is always an irony there that we should bear in mind.
	Clause 6 provides for yet another report and this one is called the annual report on micro-generation strategy. Once again, the Secretary of State will have to present it, so he is going to be a busy chap, is he not? The report will have to tell Parliament about
	the implementation of measures contained in the microgeneration strategy under section 82 of the Energy Act 2004
	well, fine. Then the clause goes on to talk about
	the achievement of any targets set for microgeneration
	or not, one might want to add. They will not always be achievements; presumably there may well be some miserable failures from time to time and perhaps we should know about them as well. Clause 6(c) then refers to
	the way in which that implementation and any steps towards achieving any targets have assisted in . . . reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, and.. alleviating fuel poverty.
	That is a pretty tall order.
	My reading of the legislation is that we are now trying to identify the role played by micro-generation in
	reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.
	I wonder whether that is technically feasible. I am sure that the experts here could tell me in some detail how it could be done. They may be reluctant to do so right now for reasons that I cannot even begin to understand, but let the question just hang in the air for the moment. Once again, it illustrates how futile much of the Bill will be. We are now asking the experts to tell us what element of the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is attributable to micro-generation.
	Let us suppose for a moment that overall carbon emissions went up, due to various other factors, but that micro-generation made a small contribution to bringing them down. How are we to tease out from an overall increase that offsetting reduction, which might have taken place, thanks to micro-generation? I do not know the answer and I have a strong suspicion that neither do the people who drafted the Bill. They want to say those sorts of things because it makes them feel better. There is nothing wrong with that, except that I am not sure whether we should use the law to make people feel better generally. There are many other ways of doing that, but we need not go into them at this stage.
	Slightly more plausible and feasible, perhaps, is the notion of the report identifying the contribution of micro-generation towards the alleviation of so-called fuel poverty. That might be easier to do. If we took it household by household, looked at income and lifestyle and judged how much was being spent on cigarettes, beer, central heating or a coal firelo and behold, there may even be a windmill in the roofperhaps we could fulfil the requirement of clause 6(c)(ii). That is my attempt to be positive, so take it for what it is worth. Other than that, clause 6 presents a bit of a difficulty and the Minister will doubtless light upon that fact in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean discussed in his expert way clause 7 and the sale of electricity produced by domestic micro-generation. This is a difficult issue, but given that this part of the Bill is apparently very important, it is worth giving some thought to. The Secretary of State, within a mere 12 months, will have to establish
	a scheme enabling electricity produced by domestic microgeneration to be sold.
	I do not know the Minister's assessment of this demand, but in my view it is probably unrealisable and unachievable. I suspect that conceiving something as complex as this within 12 months could not be done. The risk that we run here is a great one, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know. If we impose an unrealistic time limit on such an exercise, and if, in the rush to meet what would then be a statutory requirement, the Minister and his officials, with the best will in the world, cannot come up with a viable or workable proposition, we will be worse off than we were.
	I have no problem with this idea in principle and concept, but if we want to establish
	a scheme enabling electricity produced by domestic microgeneration to be sold,
	why place upon it an artificial time limit that runs the distinct risk of its being botched and coming out all wrong? I hope that that issue will be examined in Committee, because such a scheme would be much more feasible and attractive if the Minister were allowed to develop it to a reasonable time scale. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith were to include the word reasonable, that would probably bridge the gapwe usually know what reasonable means, and the Minister could at least be held to account by such a phraseand it would be better than risking failing to meet an artificial deadline.
	Clause 7(2) gives rise to a further problem. It states that
	a licensed electricity supplier may only supply electricity to a domestic customer if that supplier also undertakes to buy at market rate any electricity produced by that customer.
	We have been given no explanation as to why this provision has been included. Such a mechanism would surely function perfectly well in a much more flexible and free market. One problem has been that, for understandable reasons, the Bill's promoter did not want to detain the House for too long. I, of all people, can understand that motivation, but the price that we have therefore paid is his not spelling out in detail what this part of his Bill means and how it would work. As a result, we are somewhat at a loss. The judgment that any Member always has to make in a debate such as this is whether to take the time to explain the Bill's detail, thus seeking to persuade us of its merits, or whether to leave the detail unsaid, thereby leaving us in some doubt. Regrettably, we have had no explanation of why this important market rate provision has been built into clause 7.

Mark Harper: Because of the lack of explanation that my right hon. Friend describes, there is a risk that the Bill could lead to fuel povertyto use the Bill's own phraseby statute. If, because of the associated costs that I outlinedno Member with more experience in these matters has intervened to offer a different explanationthe licensed electricity supplier discovered that buying the electricity at market rate from the customer in question did not make business sense and therefore declined to purchase it, he would be forced, by law, to stop supplying electricity to that customer. If that customer said, Buy my electricity at market rate, and he said, No, thank you, I don't want to, the Bill as drafted would force him to stop supplying electricity.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has illustrated why it is always riskynot just risky but, for Conservative Members, unacceptableto seek to interfere through legislation in such market forces, which would operate perfectly well without such intervention. I have no conceptual or principled opposition to the idea of people doing their own thing on micro-generation and having their own arrangement with the central supplier. That would work perfectly well, but we are apparently being asked to sign up to some socialistic, interventionist, central, regulated arrangement of the kind that is supposed to be anathema to us. I choose to dissent from that, if from nothing else.
	In clause 8, we come on to green energy certificates, the acme of intervention and regulation. Apparently,
	it shall be the duty of a public authority to have regard to the desirability of  . . . promoting microgeneration, and
	and here we come to the first laugh we have had in the whole Bill
	minimising the cost and administrative burdens for domestic customers in installing or operating.
	I do not know how anyone could keep a straight face while claiming that this sort of Bill could, by statute, minimise costs and administrative burdens. The whole Bill is about costs and administrative burdens, not least in the area that my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean just highlighted. We have a complete disjunction between the words in the Bill and the almost inevitable outcome, and that cannot make sense or add   to the credibility of the parliamentary process. Clause 8 will require a fair bit of examination by the Committee and by the Minister.
	Next comes Promotion of community energy. I am sure that that is a worthy aspiration to which we would all want to sign up, but quite how it will work, whether it is working, whether it is likely to work more, and whether people fully understand the concept remain to be seen. In essence, however, that goes in the right direction. We are all signed up, are we not, to local decision making, in theory at least, even if, in fact, one keeps finding in practice that it does not quite work that way and that all politicians, when it suits them, will seek to override local decision making when they think it inappropriate or going the wrong way. At least in this regard, though, let us say that we can be comforted that the Bill gives an explicit reference to localism in the promotion of community energy. That is something on which we can all feel rather warm and fuzzy.[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is helping me with a prompt, to which I may, on this occasion, pay some attention, just so that I know what it feels like.
	There has been some discussion of clause 10 and Renewable heat obligation. It may be one of the more difficult areas in the Bill. Rather oddly, in all the paeans of praise heaped uncritically on the Bill by all the colleagues scrambling to say how much they supported it, there was, I thought, just a slight hint of unease about that part of it. I can see why. Requiring
	suppliers of heating fuel to demonstrate that a specified proportion of the fuel they supply is derived from renewable heat sources
	may be a pretty tall order, and it implies an underpinning of a degree of bureaucracy or intervention that it may be difficult to achieve.
	Then we have our old friend establish targets, and we have been through all that before. We also have the dreaded penalties. Sadly, these days, one can rarely have a Bill of this sort without the old enemy, penalties, arising. I am all for incentives and encouragement, but when we get into penalties, it is a sad day. I wonder whether full thought has been given to what those penalties might be and on whom they would fall. Would it be reasonable that they fell on the people concerned, and what would happen if they did not pay? Hiding behind that, presumably, although it has never been spelled out, lies the threat of custodial sentenceswho knows?for contempt of court, or the like. Before we go down the penalties road, I urge colleagues to think carefully, including the Ministerand, indeed, the other members of the Committee, since I must not keep assuming that the Minister will have some sort of hold on the Committee. Of course he will not, and it will be up to him to persuade the Committee of his view, which he set out so ably earlier, and for the members of the Committee to respond to it. Then it will be for those of us present for Report to assess the state of the Bill after Committee. Today is just a preliminary canter across the broad provisions of the Bill. When we get down to the real nitty-gritty of the detail, in Committee and on Report, the serious business of scrutiny will begin. All the questions that have been raised today can be fully considered.
	We face a conceptual problem with this Bill. I am not sure that the case for climate change has been made satisfactorily. I have touched briefly today on the excellent work of their Lordships and the excellent book by Mr. Bjorn Lomborg. There is the important question about climate change, but there is also the issue of the extent of the causal connection between climate change and emissions, the breadth of possibilities that that gives rise to and the differential between the effects that it might have on temperature and on sea levels. That in turn gives rise to the important question of mitigation versus adaptation, although unfortunately that went unmentioned by hon. Members today. However, it must be of key importance to the effect that the policies in the Bill are likely to have on the standards of living of our people, the prospects for economic growth and the costs of mitigation. By implication, and more importantly, those policies will have an effect on the developing world, which is not only likely to be the main generator of emissions and the main cause of global warming, but is also much more likely to suffer from the effects of that warming. That is where technology development and transfer, and adaptation, come much more into play.
	Colleagues are entitled to think that the Bill is wonderful, but we have an obligation, when we seek to make law, to be careful about whether it is soundly based. Even more importantly, we must ensure that its policy thrust is in the right direction.

Justine Greening: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Above all, we need consistency. On the one hand, we are constantly told about the need to reduce CO 2 emissions, but on the other, the Civil Aviation Bill will remove the cap on the number of flights landing at Heathrow, which is one of the main causes of the rise in CO 2 emissions. The main answer will come from individuals changing their own behaviour, but the best way for them to do that would be for the Government to provide a consistent lead in policy making

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. If she were to have the privilege of serving on the Committee, she could seek to table an amendment to strengthen the Bill in the way that she suggested.
	As I said earlier, there is just enough scopeespecially given what the Minister saidfor the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. The Minister can attempt to persuade the Committee of the strength of his arguments and then we can all look forward to Report, when we can give the Bill an even more thorough going over.

Mark Lazarowicz: With the leave of the House, I shall reply. My hon. Friend the Minister suggested that he would require certain changes to the Bill before it received Government support. That will be a matter for the Committee, but I am happy to work with the Government to that end. My hon. Friend said that there will be room for discussion in Committee, which I welcome, and it will no doubt be vigorous. I ask the House to support the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Management of Energy in Buildings Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I declare an interest, in that the sustainable energy partnership assisted me in the preparation and some of the details of the Bill.
	I am delighted that the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) received a Second Reading. My Bill considers the planning and building regulation environment for how we heat our homes and for how we can, I hope, generate power in our homes. There has already been discussion of that issue in the Chamber today. However, there has been no mention of the fact that about 28 per cent. of all the energy consumed in heating and power is in the domestic sector; it is the largest single sector.
	The energy goal set out in the 2003 White Paper was embraced by all parties. It is no less than a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide by 2050 from the 1999 levels, which is a large goal to achieve through energy policy.

Phyllis Starkey: My hon. Friend will be aware that both Members who represent Milton Keynes wholeheartedly support his Bill. Does he know of the work being undertaken by English Partnerships in Milton Keynes? In one residential development, the brief includes a menu of sustainable development features from which the developers are asked to choose, including heat and power from renewable sources and combined heat and power systems. I very much welcome the Bill as a means of building on such work and making those processes easier.

Alan Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am indeed aware of that development. Housing bodies and local authorities are considering how they can develop building standards in terms of the heat and power used in buildings. I thoroughly applaud such initiatives.
	In the context of my comments on energy use in domestic properties, it makes sense to look closely at how we heat and power our homes. The trick is to work out how we can do that while keeping our homes warm and economically powered at an increasingly high standard of comfort and amenity. Too many people still live in poorly insulated homes that are costly to heat and to power. They are often in real fuel poverty, which means the inability to pay both the costs of living in general and the costs of fuel in a particular household.

Eric Forth: Has the hon. Gentleman just defined fuel poverty as inability to meet the cost of living in general? That is what he has just said, so is that what fuel poverty means in the Bill?

Alan Whitehead: The right hon. Gentleman intervened halfway through my sentence and perhaps it was unwise of me to give way. I was saying that fuel poverty means the choice that some people who are not well-off and are living in difficult circumstances may have to make between paying the fuel bills for their homesif their homes are not well insulated, the bills may be highand paying for other necessities of life. That is a reasonable consequence to infer from a statement about fuel poverty. Although the number of households in that position has come down considerably as a result of measures that have been undertaken over recent years, more than 1 million households in England are still in that position.
	In considering how to make progress on heating and powering our homes, we need to look in two directions: we need to make our present homes more energy efficient, and we need to ensure that the next generation of homes, which we shall be building over the next 20 years, will be of the highest energy-efficiency standard and will provide low-cost energy and high-energy-efficiency living.

Robert Key: I support the hon. Gentleman's Bill. If one turns the pages of glossy magazines such as Country Life or The Field, one sees lots of wonderful, green houses which are very fuel-efficient, and they all cost about one or two million pounds. Would the Bill apply to ordinary, average-priced housing, which affects most of the people in this country? I hope it will. It is my ambition to live in the greenest house in Salisbury, and I am visiting my Royal Institute of British Architects mentor in Salisbury, Gerald Steer, in a couple of weeks to talk about the possibility of providing proper green housesfuel-efficient housesfor the average house buyer, not just the rich.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am delighted to hear that he is able to support my Bill. The point that he makes, about the need to ensure that these provisions relate to ordinary houses that cost an ordinary amount of money and perform an ordinary function for everybody in their daily life, is at the heart of what we should be doing. It is true that there have been some developments that are immensely costly but very energy efficient, and to get those two factors in proportion is an important part of the way in which we need to progress.
	The Government have done a great deal to move in that direction, in existing homes and new build. We have the Warm Front grant system for making homes more energy efficient. We have the new part L of the building regulations, setting new levels of required energy efficiency for new houses. We have a previous round of regulations that have introduced condensing boilers and low-emissivity glazing as standard in new homes. Our homes are becoming more energy efficient in their building design and as a result of the retrofitting of cavity wall insulation, loft insulation and other devices.
	But what if we could move a step further? What if our houses, as well as being more passively energy efficient, could assist, through the devices that were installed in them as standard when they were built, or that could be fitted when existing devices wore out, in producing some or even all of the energy that that home would consume?

Susan Kramer: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that in my constituency the Richmond Society, which is one of the oldest local residents' groups working on heritage and conservation, has been so inspired by this Bill and the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill that it has set up a committee to see whether it can work with the building regulations, as the hon. Gentleman proposes, to introduce such benefits, working in harmony with the heritage and conservation that has been a hallmark of the area. That is a huge step forward.

Alan Whitehead: I am very pleased to hear that news. If the discussions in this Chamber on my Bill and the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill can make such changes in the way people at all levels approach the question of energy efficiency and positive-energy-efficiency building, that will have been a great step forward indeed.

Philip Hollobone: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the importance of energy efficiency. Given that his Government are proposing that hundreds of thousands of new homes will be built in our country in the next 20 to 30 years, is it not imperative that we make the best use that we can as a nation of the 720,000 existing empty properties? It is all very well to talk about energy efficiency, but the best way to deal with that would be to ensure that the homes we have are filled with people living in them before we build new ones.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is right; it is very important that the homes that are available for occupation in this country be occupied. But it is also important that the homes that are occupied are very energy efficient, and the two go together. Certainly we are doing people no favours if we bring property back into use but that property is poorly insulated, is not energy efficient and provides a poor living experience for the people who move in. One clause in my Bill, which I shall discuss later if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, relates specifically to that question as far as new building is concerned.
	We can already produce energy in houses. We can do that in ways that are not on the drawing board or the testing bench and are with us now. We do not have to wait for a technological breakthrough to see what we can do. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) will shortly move into a house that is so energy efficient that, using various means of heating, power and insulation, he can meet all his own energy requirements in his home and can sell substantial amounts of surplus energyI think, 50 per cent. more energy than the house usesback to the national grid. Obviously, my hon. Friend will be buying drinks frequently in the bar for all his friends from now on with the proceeds that he will receive from that surplus energy.
	My aim is much more modest. Along with some 80,000 home owners in the UK, I have a solar thermal collector on my roof that produces about a third of my hot water heating supply each year. Solar photovoltaic roofs on a few thousand homes supply a substantial proportion of electricity that is consumed. Ground heat pumps can supply space heating to displace imported energy. With us shortly will be domestic combined heat and power boilers able to heat the home and produce electricity for use in the house or for export to the grid. New miniature domestic wind turbines are becoming available that can harness free electricity, and can power fridges, washing machines, televisions and lighting around the home.
	Those developments in domestic power have been likened to the early days of the personal computer revolution. People once assumed that they would sit in front of a dumb terminal connected at some distance by cable to a vast mainframe. However, within a short time of their inception, we had intelligent machines in our homes, networking with each other and giving us control of information technology at the press of a button. Those ways to heat and power homes will become commonplace in 10 years' time, with the enormous benefit of possibly reducing CO 2 emissions by a huge amount, thus benefiting people's fuel bills and domestic energy security.

Martin Horwood: I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the important initiative of promoting micro-generation. In trying to make micro-generation as commonplace as he describes, would it not be an exciting initiative to try to find out whether more social housingprovided by housing associations, arm's length management organisations and others, such as Cheltenham Borough Homes in my constituencycould incorporate micro-generation, because that would have a double benefit? Not only would it help the environment, but reduce in the long term fuel bills for some of the least well off in our society.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and anticipates exactly what I shall come to in a moment: the idea that such devices could be installed in future homes so that, at the flick of a switch, their occupiers could save on their fuel bills and compensate for increasing fuel bills by generating their own energy in their own homes.

Eric Forth: Has the hon. Gentleman made any estimate at all of the likely on-cost of all those goodies, how much might be added to the price of new homes with all that built in, and the effect that that could have particularly on first-time buyers?

Alan Whitehead: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I have made such an estimate. Indeed, I have discussed with members of the National Housing Federation what their reaction might be in respect of creating a level playing field for building homes in which those new devices are placed. For example, the cost of installing a combined heat and power boiler is not significantly greater than installing a condensing boiler, especially if it is installed when the house is built. Putting on solar PV tiles that are embedded in the roof is far cheaper than retrofitting them there. So the extra cost of building a house is marginal when introducing those devices, but the payback and benefit from doing so when a house is built can be enormous over a considerable period.

Colin Challen: I hope that my hon. Friend's Bill succeeds, even at this late hour. I wonder whether he has read the research showing that top-end, executive homes are the least energy efficient. That is partly explained by the fact that those people can afford to waste energy. So I hope that his Bill will have a chance of being considered in Committee.

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend is right. His comments reflect the intervention made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key), who suggested that it is important that the Bill apply to all homes across the board in the future, so that people in all walks of life, not just enthusiastic investors or those in certain niches, can gain from energy efficiency.

Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend makes important points that perhaps ought to be picked up in the energy review. Is not one of the things that we should examine an equal VAT rate as between new and old homes? He also referred to micro-generation, which will require a newly designed transmission scheme that the Government would do well to consider when the energy review is announced.

Alan Whitehead: What the energy review says in total is a little outside the purview of the Bill. Nevertheless my hon. Friend makes an important point about the idea that energy arrangements could lead to a network grid rather than a hard-wired grid going from parts of the country to other parts via the large power stations that we have at the moment. It is important that the energy review consider such issues.
	My Bill provides the means to allow for a potential revolution to take place in how we heat and power homes. It wants to provide the planning environment in which people would be able to take decision to retrofit micro-generation devices to their homes without having to await the lottery and uncertainty of planning regulations.

Annette Brooke: I, too, wish to place on record my support for both the Bills that we have considered today. Does the hon. Gentleman not think it absolutely ludicrous that controversial applications for telecommunications masts of less than 15 m are often permitted whereas applications for something that is far less noticeable and far less controversial require expensive planning applications?

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Lady is quite right. The issue is not just telephone masts, but deemed planning permission for satellite dishes and television aerials. The devices that we are discussing are no larger than them.

Nia Griffith: Does my hon. Friend look forward to the day when a child drawing a house will automatically include solar panels and a wind charger in the picture?

Alan Whitehead: I fear that houses will continue to be drawn with two chimneys, flowers in the garden, a gate and a little path. However, my hon. Friend is right to suggest that if they were drawn differently, that would really show that we had made a change.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) is right. Depending on where one lives in the country, one's plans for a renewable energy device on the house may be thwarted or agreed after long days of substantial cost.
	On new build, the Bill's aim is to encourage building regulations that, without specifying the device, require new homes to be fitted upon completion with boilers, solar tiles, or small wind turbines and other possible devices that guarantee that the home is both energy efficient in its design and energy productive in its daily use. It would also provide for assessment of how household machines such as fridges, freezers and so on can use dynamic demand technology, so they too play their part in using only the most efficient power supply and in the best circumstances.
	Hon. Members have mentioned fuel poverty; let us think about it for a moment and of the prospect of homesperhaps social housing or rented propertythat could pay us to live in as well as cost us. As fuel prices rise, they would possess an automatic brake on prices through the domestic energy that the home produces.
	Clause 1 looks to build on energy efficiency targets introduced in the Housing Act 2004 by adding reports on the effect of energy efficiency measures on CO 2 emissions and on the alleviation of fuel poverty. Clause 2 seeks to extend permitted development orders to include the deemed permitted development of small renewable devicescarefully defined and limitedso that householders, local authorities and manufacturers of micro-generation would be clear about what can be done, and if it is of domestic size and use, would ensure that the device can progress to production within the home quickly and straightforwardly.
	Clause 3 seeks to require that new homes be graded for energy efficiency and assessed as to the total amount of energy that they are likely to use in a year, and then would enable a percentage of estimated use to be required to be produced by the working of the house itself. Clause 4 would add to the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 the requirement to asses how dynamic demand technologies could contribute to carbon saving, and how obstacles to the use of such technologies in the home could be overcome.

David Howarth: I wish the Bill every success, as I did the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that clause 4 of the Bill is especially important, because if dynamic demand technologies work, they will encourage the use of other renewable technologies throughout the grid system? In addition, they could save the grid up to 80 million a year by reducing response generation costs.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Dynamic demand technologies use the intelligence that we possess on measuring energy to ensure that energy is used in the most effective way. He is right that such technology could become widespread in other areas.
	I have reviewed briefly the principal four clauses of my Billthat is it. The Bill is short, and I do not believe that it would be possible to spend approaching an hour dissecting it clause by clause, but we shall see. It opens the door to profound and overwhelmingly beneficial changes to the way in which we heat and power our homes.
	I mentioned earlier what is already under way within Government to move forward on energy efficiency in buildings. I am aware, of course, that there is never an ideal time to introduce such legislation if work is already in progress. I do not want to stop such estimable work progressing by introducing the provisions in the Bill in such a way that that happens while new directions are incorporated. I am also aware that the wording of private Members' Bills is rarely, if ever, exactly right straightaway, which is of course why if such Bills achieve their Second Reading, it is necessary to examine their clauses closely and perhaps amend them in Committee. If my Bill receives its Second Reading, I am sure that we will want to do just that.
	We might, for example, want to examine the way in which the Government's review of the complex and sometimes internally contradictory regime of permitted development orders can be assisted, rather than hindered, by the way in which deemed planning permission for micro-generation devices is best advanced. We also might want to consider how any legislative requirement to empower the Secretary of State to make new building regulations would sit best with the new code on sustainable building. When that code is developed, I understand that it will strongly guide developers on the minimum standards to which they will be expected to build. It will herald the emergence of future revisions to building regulations to incorporate such guidelines. I would want any provision in my Bill to work with that code, not against it.
	We might also want to consider in Committee whether immensely encouraging potential and actual developments in building efficiency could be undermined by the completion of buildings that do not conform to the regulations as they stand. It is too late to make changes after completion, because the dwelling is built and occupied. It is regrettable that recent surveys have shown that an appreciable minority of new buildings fail to incorporate present building regulations standards. An important element of my proposals relies on the completion of buildings that work efficiently to the standards set down.
	I say these things because above all I consider the Bill to be a real piece of workable legislation that wouldyesact partly as the midwife of a revolution in the heating and powering of our homes, but do so in a practical, clear and equitable manner. I ask the House to give my Bill a Second Reading so that it can be advanced to play the role that I believe it can, and so that perhaps in 10 years, we can look back, as people in their thousands, or perhaps even millions, pick up from the mat not the bill for the energy that they have consumed, but the cheque for the power that their homes have produced, and say, We did that. We helped to make it happen in November 2005 for the benefit of our climate, for the fuel well-being of our people and for our comfortable, but energy efficient, daily living.

Mark Harper: I shall come immediately to the Bill. Clause 2 relates to permitted development orders. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made a timely intervention about permitted development rights for telephone masts. I sound a note of caution because we probably all know from our constituencies about the trouble that they have caused. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) has sensibly anticipated a potential problem, because clause 2(5) allows the Secretary of State to
	make provision about conditions relating to the environmental impact of a small renewable energy development
	such as appearance and noise.
	As I said in the previous debate, I am not an engineer, and I am not clear about one of the criteria for classifying something as a small renewable energy development being its power output
	the generation of energy of 10 kilowatts or less.
	I wonder whether some appliances that fulfilled that criterion would comply with the provisions about appearance and noise. The last thing that hon. Members want to do, through the best intentions, is to cause many unsightly units to spring up throughout the country through permitted development rights. We all know from our post bags the trouble that that can cause, especially when the planning system is powerless to do anything about it.

Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend share my worry that if we loosen the planning regime sufficiently to allow all the allegedly good things to happen, there is a great danger of intrusion by noise from windmills and other devices? Perhaps health and safety hazards could be caused by generating plants that are not properly maintained or managed by people who do not know how to do that. Does he agree that some protection is required in the planning regime?

Mark Harper: I agree, but I do not want to dwell on that now because such detail is for consideration in Committee.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman may have misheard the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who mentioned the noise caused by such technologies. The noise created by a micro-generation wind turbine, which is only a few feet high, is negligible. Surely he agrees that noise will not be a bar to their introduction.

Mark Harper: That is a timely intervention, but the promoter acknowledges that there are potential problems with the noise and appearance of the units. Clause 2(5) gives the Secretary of State the power to make conditions about the appearance and noise of such devices, thus heading off those anxieties. However, I am worried that the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power, but not the duty, to provide for those conditions. We could get into a dangerous position whereby the Government did not make such provisions and we could end up with the same problems as we experience with phone masts. We do not want to repeat that problem.
	There is a potential problem with clause 3, which deals with building regulations. The problem does not affect new buildings, but subsection (3) provides for energy ratings for dwellings. I am worried about the use to which the information could be put, especially the potential use for taxation. It is probably reasonably cost effective to constructthrough modern technology and all the latest building techniquesnew build housing that is as energy efficient as possible. That is welcome. However, in constituencies such as mine we do not desire massive new housing development. Many of the properties in the area, including the property in which I live, are hundreds of years old, so without spending huge amounts of money they are not amenable to becoming especially energy efficient. I would not want my constituents to have their properties rated as energy inefficient

Alan Whitehead: The energy efficiency rating in clause 3 applies to new build only and not to retro fitting on existing buildings.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for that clarification, but I am not sure whether that is the effect of the clause. It does not specifically provide for an energy rating only on a new dwelling.

Alison Seabeck: It does.

Mark Harper: I am slightly less concerned if that is the case. There is a difference between new build and existing dwellings.
	I am slightly worried about the language in the Bill, which refers to a
	typical dwelling of the same type
	having a meaning to be prescribed in future. I should prefer such meanings to be defined in the Bill.
	On clause 4, in relation to dynamic demand technologies, it is sensible to use technologies that use the power available more efficiently. It would be helpful if the Minister were to tell us whether she was attracted by this part of the Bill, because one of the concerns expressed by the CBI and other business organisations is that if this winter is particularly harsh there might be restrictions on power availability. It might therefore suit the Government to have a wide availability of technologies that enable energy suppliers to cope more easily with not being able to produce to previous peak demand levels. We do not want to overdo it, however, because that would reduce the duty on power suppliers to supply the power that we demand. To some extent, that is sensible, but I do not want to start forcing people to make do with less power than they require.

Paddy Tipping: Surely, however, the whole input of the Bill is to reduce carbon emissions, and if we can do that from our own homes that makes sense. It also makes sense in economic terms. These are good value-for-money measures and I am perturbed that the hon. Gentleman is arguing in favour of the big generating companies and not for his constituents and mine.

Mark Harper: I think that it was pointed out earlier that the building regulations will only apply to new buildings, so most of my constituents will not be affected as there will not be substantial new build in my constituencynor is it wanted. I am addressing my constituents' concerns. In areas where there will not be substantial new build, I do not want a future Government to be able to tax people based on the energy rating of their homes, which some interest groups have already discussed.
	For many constituents, in areas where there will not be new build it is not possible, at an economic cost, to make homes

Phyllis Starkey: Is not the logic of the hon. Gentleman's point that we should rule out windows in houses on the basis that some future Government might decide to introduce a window tax?

Mark Harper: I think that the hon. Lady will regret making that point, as we have known since a week or two ago that the Government propose to build a database of views from windows, and my constituents in the Forest of Dean might be affected by that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we ought to concentrate on the Bill before the House.

Alan Simpson: I want to try to help the hon. Gentleman out of the hole that he was getting into. During my experience with an existing property over the past year, I have learned a lesson from Woking council, which has taken existing buildings and incorporated them into a local energy system, raising the standards of the built environment and giving renewable energy systems to those properties in different energy market contracts. Is that not the significance of supporting this Bill and the preceding Bill?

Mark Harper: As I have said, I am not an engineer or scientist by training, so the hon. Gentleman's points about his experience are most helpful. He makes a valuable point about the effectiveness of local action. If it is possible under existing regimes to do as Woking council has done successfully, it strikes me that we should be cautious about making things more complicated. Given that many people have said that these sorts of issues are important, and people are chomping at the bit to be able to do their own thing, we should focus on reducing the complexity and bureaucracy and removing barriers. I think we should be a little cautious about making things more complicated.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) mentioned cost. The Government have rightly focused on the cost of providing homes for those who find buying low-cost homes difficult. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test touched on the question of how much we load on to the building of new homes. The Minister has expressed an interest in producing low-cost homes, as has her boss the Deputy Prime Minister, but building regulations often add costs. We should not make things more expensive and difficult to achieve while saying that we want to do the opposite. I end on that note of caution.

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on presenting a Bill that raises important issues relating to climate change, energy efficiency and housing.
	Members will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy express the Government's commitment to supporting micro-generation and improving renewable energy and energy efficiency, so I shall not repeat arguments that were covered in the debate on the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill. I will, however, deal with important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test about the role of the housing sector. We know that housing is responsible for a significant level of carbon emissions, which is why it is so important to address energy efficiency and promote the take-up of renewable energy in both new and existing homes.
	We have already made substantial improvements in the energy efficiency of new buildings. Earlier in the autumn we announced new standards in building regulations, which will mean that the total energy efficiency of new buildings will have improved by 40 per cent. in just five years. That is extremely important. It means that we can plan to build more homes than the last Conservative Government planned to build, but with fewer overall emissions. It also means that householders' heating and fuel bills will be reduced. We need to go further, however. The Bill shows the way towards the lifting of unnecessary planning restrictions, which will allow the retro-fitting of micro-generation technologies for existing houses where appropriate. It also envisages a time when it will be commonplace for new houses to be fitted with such technologies, which would meet an appreciable percentage of a home's energy needs.
	The Government welcome the Bill's aims, but as my hon. Friend knows, we have some worries about the detail and about the mechanisms for its implementation. We believe that they can be resolved in Committee, however, and it is on that basis that we support the Bill today.
	The Bill requires the Secretary of State to report on progress towards the energy efficiency targets in the Housing Act, and on the effects on fuel poverty. We already have mechanisms for reporting on energy efficiency progress, which we think could be incorporated in the process so that Parliament is kept up to date and we have an impetus to ensure that our progress continues. We also think it right for the planning system to play a larger role in improvements in energy efficiency. We have already set out a commitment to planning for renewable energy in planning policy statement 22 and its companion guide, which recommend greater use of renewables including micro-generation, domestic and other small-scale energy installations.
	Planning can play a further role in relation to individual homes. It is already possible to install some small renewable energy equipment without needing to apply for planning permission, including photovoltaic cells and solar panels. However, we understand the fear that local authorities can interpret the rules inconsistently, and the view that we could do more.We all recognise that appropriate safeguards need to be in place for neighbours on things such as size and noise, as the Bill recommends, but equally we think that it is possible to make it easier for householders to install a range of small renewable energy developments within permitted development, with those safeguards in place.

Eric Forth: I am a little worried that somewhat concealed in the words that the Minister has just used, although I am sure that it was not deliberate, was the implication that national standards would be applied. Does she not want at least to pay lip service to the new doctrine of localism and to allow much more flexibility for local planning authorities to be more aware of local conditions in applying the things that she has just talked about?

Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is a range of areas in which local discretion is important. It is an important principle within the planning system. There is a range of areas where local decisions need to be made to take into account local circumstances. There is also a national planning framework. A range of things are already included within permitted development to ensure that the planning system at local level does not get clogged up by unnecessary applications for very small-scale developments. That is the way in which the permitted development system has worked for a long time.
	Where we have concerns with the Bill is that it involves additional piecemeal amendment of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development Order) 1995. One of the reasons we have patchy interpretation of the order at the moment, including around renewable energy, is that parts of it have become unnecessarily complicated, including piecemeal amendments over a long period.
	We have already begun a major review of permitted development to simplify the system and to allow appropriate minor development to be taken out of the planning system. We envisage consulting on possible amendments to the general permitted development order next year. That would allow proper consultation to take place about the right balance and safeguards that need to be in place. We believe that that is the right opportunity to look at taking forward the ability of householders to install a range of small renewable energy developments without specific planning permission.
	Therefore, we would like to discuss in Committee the right relationship between primary and secondary legislation on this issue. Permitted development is generally dealt with in secondary legislation, so that we can have the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and technology. The Government support the need to promote better energy efficiency and the use of things such as micro-generation and renewable energy in new developments and new homes.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me a chance to put on the record my support for the Bill. Does she accept that the use of micro-renewables promoted by the Bill could help the Government to comply with their statutory duty under the Housing Act 2004 to increase domestic energy efficiency by 20 per cent. by 2010?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that we want to improve domestic energy efficiency both across existing stock and new stock. That is why we think that the Bill raises some important principles. It also raises the issue of building regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test is aware that we have certain concerns about the way in which that matter is dealt with in the Bill. We agree that building regulations are an important tool for improving energy efficiency and cutting carbon emissions. However, generally they do not specify particular technologies or ways of achieving standards. Instead, they specify outcomes and allow builders and developers flexibility about how to achieve those outcomes.
	That is an important principle, because it encourages innovation and it does not prevent competition if new technologies or approaches come forward. It means that regulations do not hamper the take-up of new technologies that may not yet have been anticipated. Therefore, we would be uncomfortable about being committed by this Bill to specifying particular approaches, as opposed to specifying outcomes, within the building regulations.
	We also believe that there are additional ways we can promote micro-generation, such as through the code for sustainable buildings, on which we will consult shortly. We have just announced higher standards in building regulations on energy efficiency, too. Clearly, regulations need to be based on what is achievable in practice. We also propose to consider micro-generation as part of the review of existing building regulations that has just commenced. We believe that any concerns can be resolved in Committee, and we hope that we can have further discussions on the detail, including that aspect.
	We welcome the emphasis in the Bill on promoting dynamic demand technology and we are happy to support its Second Reading. It raises important issues and will contribute to improving energy efficiency in buildings and promoting new technologies to protect the environment. We look forward to discussing it in Committee.

Bill Wiggin: Almost half Britain's 161.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions come from buildings. Despite all the rhetoric about the importance of joined-up government, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no statutory obligation to take action to improve energy efficiency, reduce carbon dioxide emissions or mitigate the impact of climate change. I shall keep my comments short because I very much want the Bill to receive a Second Reading.
	Last December the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said:
	We will not, on the basis of current policies alone, achieve our ambitious goal of a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions.
	The Secretary of State has admitted the obvious fact that the Labour Government will not reach their target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below the 1990 level, and that makes it clear that we need firm action and new policies. That is why the Opposition welcome many aspects of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead).
	The Bill is short and concise, and I am sure that it will make a difference to the environment. It contains practical measures that will reduce emissions, help to sustain the environment and save money. Indeed, the Micropower Council says that one of its provisions will eliminate the need for planning permission for micro-power plants generating 10 kW or less. Those wishing to install such systems would save about 265. The reduction in red tape and costs that the Bill offers will make micro-generation all the more attractive for Britain's millions of home owners and thousands of small businesses.
	Dynamic Demand estimates that the changes promoted by the Bill could lead to savings of about 2.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year, or more than 1 per cent. of the total carbon dioxide emissions that we produce.
	I hope that if the Bill makes further progress, we shall consider including geothermal power as a source of energy within the remit of the Bill. In addition, the Bill could set a higher capacity for micro-generation than that in clause 2(4). Households consume on average between 3,500 and 5,000 kWh per year, and if we empower the public to generate more of the energy for their homes through micro-generation renewables, that would be economically incentivising themthis is the most terrible English; I shall rephrase that. It would give them an economic incentive to sell the excess produced to the national grid.
	The Bill will make a positive difference to the environment. It promotes micro-generation and energy efficiency and will serve to hold the Government's policies to account and make them more transparent. It contains measures that the Labour Government should have introduced a long time ago.

Andrew Stunell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on his success in the ballot and his choice of Bill. I give it a warm welcome, not only because I am one of its sponsors, but because I believe that it is an important piece of a big and complex jigsaw aimed at reducing carbon emissions.
	As the promoter of the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004, which started as a private Member's Bill that I steered through in the Session before last, I am delighted to see this Bill taking another step along the same route. My enthusiasm for the Bill sometimes amounts almost to a sense of desperation, because we need such Bills so much. It is a worthwhile Bill, but it will make only a small contribution to tackling the enormous problem of climate change, and in particular, the urgent need to reduce CO 2 emissions here in the United Kingdom.
	The fastest growth in carbon dioxide emissions comes from commercial premises, from transport and from the biggest wasters of energythe domestic sector. It is a constant puzzle that most of us are responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions from our houses each year than from our cars, yet this place spends tremendous effort and political energy on restricting the use of the car, and practically none on restricting carbon dioxide emissions from our homes. If we did that, we would reduce our bills and improve our home comfort levels, as well as reduce carbon dioxide and slow the rate of climate change.
	On the whole, we have had a non-partisan debate today, which is most welcome. Speaking as someone who steered a private Member's Bill through to Royal Assent in 2004, I have to say that it is good to have a broad consensus, but strong, firm Government action is also required. It is disappointing that, 14 months after my Bill gained Royal Assent, it has still not been implemented. That is my word of caution to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test: getting a Bill passed is difficult enough, but getting it implemented can be even more difficult. As far as I know, there is not yet a consultation document on the Bill that I steered though. I cannot even get confirmation that the working party to draw up the document has yet met. I look forward to hearing the Minister reassure me about that on another occasion.
	The fact remains that the Bill provides a modest but valuable step on the road to tackling climate change. It seems to have the good will of the Government, albeit perhaps a little grudgingly given in some respects. Perhaps there is more trouble ahead in Committee. However, I say to both the Government and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test that we must ensure that the Bill not only gets through Second Reading and Committee, but is subsequently put into effect.
	I certainly hope that we can get the Bill through today and that it gains the success that it richly deserves, but there are predatorsperhaps some are still in their place right nowand pitfalls ahead. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test needs to beware not only of those who are overt about their approach to the Bill, but of those such as the Minister, perhaps, who appear to come smiling and bearing gifts. Sometimes things can go wrong.
	Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the House is debating these issues and his Bill today. The Bill that has just gained its Second Reading and this Bill make a valuable and substantial contribution to moving forward on climate change and providing Britain with some solutions to that problem, particularly in respect of its built environment.
	As has already been said, our built environment is one of the most extensive producers of carbon dioxide, but simple savings can be made not just at low cost, but at zero economic cost. I hope that the House will pass the Bill, not just here on Second Reading but in Committee and subsequently, and I hope that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will have the opportunity to wind up the debate and put his Bill before the House for approval.

Eric Forth: Inadvertently, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) has provided a graphic illustration of how worthless many of these Bills turn out to be. His Bill became an Act, but he has admitted that nothing has happened since. That tells its own story and hon. Members would be well advised to reflect carefully about legislating for all the good things in life and should not be too surprised when little happens as a result.
	When I had a quick look at the list of the Bill's supporters, I noticed that it included 11 hon. Members, not including the promoter himself, yet only three seem to be present in their places today. That does not suggest to me an overwhelming degree of enthusiasm for the Bill. Sadly, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you will know, that is not an unusual phenomenon. Members are all too ready to sign up to Bills, but cannot drag themselves here on a Friday to support them and see them put on the statute book.

Alan Whitehead: Could the right hon. Gentleman save time and read the telephone directory out? Would that be helpful?

Eric Forth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman here on his one Friday of the year, bearing his little Bill[Interruption.] I am going to finish my point.

Martin Horwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Forth: I would be delighted to give way.
	The hon. Member for Southampton, Test should know that all this is part of proceedings on a Friday. I say in all courtesy him that those of us who are here every Friday because we consider doing so to be our duty to our constituents do not take very kindly to being admonished by the once-a-year Friday attendees for our conduct of parliamentary proceedings. I now give way to the hon. Member for Cheltenham.

Martin Horwood: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I speak, I think, for new Liberal Democrat Members, at least, when I say that one reason why it is sometimes difficult to motivate Members to come here on a Friday and to stay to the end of a debate such as this is that we are growing rather cynical about some of the House's procedures and the way in which they are exploited by certain

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow this debate to stray that far from the Bill before us.

Eric Forth: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I seem to have touched a rather sensitive nerve, unsurprisingly.
	The Bill contains a number of interesting and controversial ideas, including our old friend the alleviation of fuel poverty, to which I shall return. It is worth another airingit always isand must never be left as a given. First, however

Phyllis Starkey: I recall on a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman's mentioning that most of his contact with constituents was on a Saturday morning in Waitrose with Mrs. Forth. Does he get comments in Waitrose about fuel poverty, or does he feel that people in fuel poverty are unlikely to be able to patronise quite the same level of establishment?

Eric Forth: The honest answer is that I do not recall anyone having raised the subject of fuel povertydoubtless because they do not understand what it is. If they did, they would probably be as mystified by it as I am, as I shall explain to the hon. Lady and the House in a moment.
	First, I want to have a look at clause 1 (1), which rather tediously requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament each calendar year
	a report on the progress made towards achieving the energy efficiency targets set under section 217 of the Housing Act 2004.
	Because all debates such as this stand alone, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we cannot possibly have regard to any previous such debate, that gives us the opportunity to rehearse the question of the meaningfulness of regular reports to Parliament. Sadly, I have yet to be convinced that obliging a Secretary of State to make regular reports to Parliament will move forward in a meaningful way any area or issue of policy. Yet again, however, here we have such a bureaucratic requirement.
	I have no doubt that imposing such requirements makes people feel good about themselves and the issue that they are espousing, but I have never been too sure what Members think that laying such a report before Parliament achieves. I must admit that it is tempting at this stage to make a purely political point and to say that, of course, there is great benefit to be gained by forcing a Government to produce such a report, which would inevitably embarrass them. Very rarely do such reports suggest that Governments have made great progress, or that the objectives envisaged in the legislation in question will be fulfilled.
	So I am tempted, politically, to say, let us have any number of reports forcing the Secretary of State to come to the House and admit that, almost inevitably, the various targets, aims and objectives have not been met. But something inside me says that I should not succumb to that temptation, because to do so would be over-bureaucratic and over-regulatory. In theory, at least, my party is pledged to not being bureaucratic or regulatory, although I increasingly have my doubts about that. So right at the Bill's beginningclause 1(1)I am at odds with it and rather unhappy about its provisions.
	Clause 1(2) then tells us what the report is supposed to inform us about:
	The report must specify the impact of . . . progress on . . . reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide; and . . . the alleviation of fuel poverty.
	That immediately raises the question of what happens if the report says that no progress has been made in the reduction of CO 2 emissions. Are we to assume that something will happen as a result, or that this will simply embarrass the Government? If nothing will happen, what is the point of producing the report? There are not too many examples in recent political history of the mere production of a report showing that the Government of the day have failed to meet a certain set of objectives in turn leading to rectifying action by that Government. So the assumption made in many of the Bills that come before us on a FridayBills that, regrettably, few colleagues are here to considerthat such reports themselves produce good results is very much open to challenge, to say the least.
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 10 March

Remaining Private Members' Bills
	  
	BOROUGH FREEDOM (FAMILY SUCCESSION) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 20 January.

BREASTFEEDING ETC. BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 24 February.

SOUTH ASIAN EARTHQUAKE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Watson.]

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the south Asian earthquake disaster that is slowly but surely turning into a catastrophe. I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development for being here to respond, as I know that he has a personal interest, as do many of his constituents, who have raised thousands and thousands of pounds to help the victims of the earthquake disaster in Pakistan, India and Kashmir.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) and for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) recently visited the affected areas with me as part of a delegation, with the UK charity Helping Hands and the Limbless Association in the UK, of which the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), among others, is well aware. I can honestly say that the four days we spent in Pakistan and Kashmir were four of the most harrowing days of my life. The places we visited included Abbotabad, Mensera, Bagh, Balakot and the Chathara plain, and the scenes were unbelievable. The stark facts speak for themselves. More than 73,276 are dead; more than 69,260 people are wounded; 3.3 million people are homeless; 1.3 million have lost their livelihoods; 15,000 villages, hamlets and townships are devastated; 6,000 schools are destroyed; 364 medical facilities are destroyed; and I could go on.
	Those are not just figures. That part of south Asia is like a war zone. Those figures are real people, just like us, our families and our constituents. I met three-year-old, four-year-old, six-year-old, and nine-year-old children who are amputees, with a leg missing or an arm missing. Children have been orphaned. Grandparents have been traumatised by seeing their entire familychildren and grandchildrenwiped out. Ancestral homes have been destroyed. Children and adults are still in a physical state of shock more than three weeks after the earthquake, because of what they witnessed. Aftershocks have caused roads that had been cleared to be blocked again by landslides. Again, I could go on.
	I met heroic British citizens helping in the disaster zone, relief workers, British doctors, BT engineers, British nurses, Department for International Development staff, RAF Chinook pilots and personnel, and others doing their best to help. Of course, disasters emergency committee organisations are doing a great job, including Islamic Relief, Save the Children, the British Red Cross, Oxfam, Merlin, Christian Aid, World Vision and many more. Less heard-of British charities are also doing a brilliant job, including Helping Hands, Muslim Hands, Muslim Aid and others.
	I pay tribute to the British public and the British Government. Ordinary members of our communities have been phenomenally generous with their donations, and often it is the poorest in our constituencies who have been the most generous in giving charity. More than 30 million was raised from the British public alone in the first three weeks after the earthquake. Our Government, too, have punched above their weight, and the Pakistani Government and the people we met are very grateful for the help that we have given and have seen the benefits of the 33 million that we have donated. British expertise, British helicopters and British equipment have been out there from day one, and I pay tribute to those concerned.
	There has been a silver lining to the earthquake disaster. President Musharraf has announced that Pakistan will postpone the purchase of F-16 aircraft from the USA in the light of the disaster facing Pakistan and the region. We have also seen continued improvements in relations between India and Pakistan, which have led to the line of command being opened at five separate places. However, as I said earlier, the disaster is quickly and surely turning into a catastrophe.
	The British and other western media have lost interest and I am concerned that the full scale of the horror will not become known in the western world. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says that the number of casualties continues to rise as new areas are accessed. Up to 30 per cent. of the earthquake affected areas remain inaccessible. Some 250,000 people are above the snow line and face a life-threatening situation.
	UNICEF estimates that more than 32,000 children may have died and that there are tens of thousands of children who are now in peril due to deteriorating weather, injury and illness. There are 120,000 children in the mountains still waiting for help, of whom 10,000 could die of hunger, hypothermia and disease within the next few weeks.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing an Adjournment debate on this important subject and on the words that he has addressed to the House. Does he share my concern about the lack of helicopter airlift capability in this and other disasters? That has meant that we are only just discovering the true horror of the earthquake in the region, because no one has been able to get there. The recent UN humanitarian response review report looked at the issue of improving airlift capacity. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Government to have an urgent review of this country's ability to provide helicopters?

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and my hon. Friend the Minister have ensured that the UK Government have done their share. For example, I met the pilots of three Chinook helicopters who were doing three sorties a day, which was way more than their counterparts. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about ensuring that we are prepared for future disasters, and my hon. Friend the Minister will have heard his concern.
	Islamic Relief also expressed concern about the disaster. It said that the prospect of a second wave of death looms over the survivors as thousands of injured people remain stranded without access to food, shelter and sanitation. Helicopters play a vital role in alleviating some of that suffering.
	It is with shame and anger that I tell the House that the international community is failing to provide a global solution to this global catastrophe. The earthquake was not preventable, but further deaths in the days and weeks afterwards were. It is useful to compare and contrast the present disaster with the tsunami disaster that occurred almost a year ago, on Boxing day 2004, but I should point out that I do not criticise the help that we or the international community gave to those affected. The tsunami affected 1 million people: the Pakistan, India and Kashmiri earthquake has made 4 million people homeless. The tsunami affected flat coastal areas that were easy to reach: the earthquake was in rugged, mountainous terrain. After the tsunami, there was moderate weather in all the areas affected: temperatures in the earthquake zone have already dropped to freezing point and snowfall has started. In the case of the tsunami, 4,000 helicopters were made available by foreign countries in days: the earthquake region has received 70, and the Pakistani Government and the UN can no longer afford the fuel to make optimal use of them. In the case of the tsunami, 80 per cent. of the aid pledged by the international community to the UN was realised in two weeks: more than four weeks after the earthquake, Pakistan has received 12 per cent. of the promised aid.
	There is a stark contrast in the scale of the international response to the UN appeal in each case. I said that I was angry and ashamed and I shall explain why. After the tsunami, international donors pledged more than $700 million for immediate emergency relief in the first two weeks alone; 79 per cent. of the UN appeal was met within two weeks, whereas more than a month after the earthquake, only $131 million had been pledgedonly 24 per cent. of the UN appeal. Unless the   Government take a lead in the international community, I truly fear that children, adults and elderly people will die from starvation, cold and diseaseavoidable deaths.
	Pakistan needs help. India, because of the numbers affected, is coping well by herself. Pakistan needs tents, other shelter, food, medicine, blankets, helicopters, fuel and more. In addition to the specialist help that DFID is giving, I have been advised that the best thing we can do is to provide urgent cash assistance so that the relief experts and agencies on the ground can spot-purchase what is required locally.

Dawn Butler: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Will he join me in congratulating UNICEF on its efforts to ensure that collections are co-ordinated? Although the media have not pursued things as vigorously as we would like, should not we appeal to the public to continue to collect funds and maintain a co-ordinated approach through UNICEF?

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; she is right. The relief agencies are amazing. I met people who should be treated as heroes: UNICEF, Save the Children, Islamic Relief, Helping Hands and others are doing a fantastic job. But we have never seen a disaster on that scale, so even with the best will in the world and the best planning and organisation it was impossible to be as organised at the outset as we should have liked. It is now five weeks later, however, and we know the scale of the disaster so it is important to try to take steps to address it.
	What can we do? In the short term, the priorities are clearly the emergency rescue and relief that have been mentioned. We also need early rehabilitation and reconstruction help, and I shall explain how I hope that our Government can help. First, on 19 November, a donors conference will be held in Pakistan. The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, will attend and will ask for help from the international community. I hope that our Government do as they have always done and take the lead in putting pressure on other Governments to do more.
	Secondly, eight weeks are left of our presidency of the European Union and of the G8. Over the past few months, we have seen how much we could do, by leading from the front, to make poverty history: an example of Britain using her influence and expertise to persuade other countries to do more. I urge our Government to use the influence and reputation that they have gained as president of the EU and the G8 to do much more; for example, we could persuade the EU to include Pakistan in its generalised system of preferences plus.
	Thirdly, we could offer the same type of trade concessions as were rightly given to the areas affected by the tsunami disaster. We need to ensure that we help Pakistan stand on her own feet. Yes, Pakistan needs help immediately, but her people want fair trade. They do not want handouts; they prefer to earn their way out of the crisis. Every billion dollars of exports translates into 300,000 jobs in Pakistan, which has an impact on 1.5 million people, and shows how people can help themselves to recover from catastrophe.
	I subscribe to the view that a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members. As a member of the international family, we should be judged by how the victims of the earthquake disaster in south Asia are treated. I sincerely hope that DFID and the Government will lead the way in showing just how civilised and just we are.

Gareth Thomas: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate him and other hon. Friends on taking the time to visit the region to see for themselves the scale of the tragedy that is unfolding in Pakistan, and for ensuring that the attention of the House continues to be drawn to the disaster, even though international media attention may have begun to diminish. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the generosity of the British public and the many British-based non-governmental organisations operating in the area.
	Since the earthquake struck, with such devastating effect, on 8 October, the scale of the tragedy has become starkly and increasingly clear to us all. The Government of Pakistan's latest figures report that more than 73,000 people lost their lifeother estimates put the figure higher, at some 87,000with some 69,000 people suffering injury. In Indian-administered Kashmir, the death toll is reported at over 1,300 people, and some 4,500 people are reported to have been injured. In total, some 3.5 million people are affected, of whom 2.5 million have lost their homes. The 200,000 people living in difficult-to-access areas, including those above the snow line, are, as my hon. Friend rightly said, at particular risk as winter approaches. The priority now must be to ensure that those who survived the disaster receive the assistance that they require to support them through the winter months.
	The principal objective of our response to the earthquake so far has been to support the immediate survival needs of the affected population and to continue the support into the spring, or longer if necessary. To date, we have allocated some 33 million of assistance for the immediate relief effort. We recognise the need for the international community to do more. Overall, I have to say, international assistance for the relief phase to date has been disappointing. We are the second largest donor to the relief effort. We are prepared to provide additional assistance while also urging other donors to increase their support to the relief needs at this critical point.
	Our immediate assistance has included search and rescue teams; indeed, the first international search and rescue team to arrive in the affected areas was a British-based NGO whose visit we helped to fund. In addition to search and rescue, we have provided priority relief materials including tents, blankets and tarpaulins. We have helped to fund air transport, including helicopters, and programmed support to various United Nations agencies, to the Red Cross movement and to a series of non-governmental organisations. As part of our support to NGOs we have been funding flights for the UK's Disasters Emergency Committee. Indeed, to date we have funded some 65 flights for agencies of the DEC, costing some 3 million. In addition, 3 million of the 5 million that we have given to NGOs has gone to DEC agencies. Our aim is to ensure that the funding raised by the Disasters Emergency Committee from the British public, which I was pleased to learn today has risen to some 37 million, is spent on material and direct assistance rather than the commercial costwhich we are meetingof the flights to send supplies to the affected region.
	As I said, I greatly appreciate the valuable efforts made by the public and concerned people the length and breadth of Britain who want to respond to this terrible disaster. Wherever possible, we have sought to use available space on the aircraft for other agencies, and we have encouraged the Disasters Emergency Committee to collaborate with other charities that want to send support. By way of example, we provided support to Islamic Relief, providing it with the funding for some 10,000 tarpaulins, 20,000 blankets and 1,000 winterised family tents from the supplies of the Department for International Development, and have funded two Islamic Relief flights under the DEC airlift support that I alluded to earlier. Islamic relief is just one of many British-based NGOs doing a fantastic job in responding to the disaster.
	The European Community's Humanitarian Office has contributed about 9.2 million to the relief effort and the European Commission has already pledged some 54 million towards longer-term rehabilitation and reconstruction. The UK's share of that assistance is around 11 million.
	However, as my hon. Friend rightly made clear, the immediate situation remains critical. According to the Pakistani authorities, some 315,000 tents have already been distributed. The Government of Pakistan and the United Nations are confident that up to 300,000 tents will be delivered by the end of the month, but more and continuing assistance is needed.
	The United Nations has developed a humanitarian action plan for November to target assistance to an estimated 200,000 individuals in the high valleys, as well as 150,000 people who are expected to settle in both spontaneously organised and planned camps. The focus of that plan is on emergency shelter, medical evacuations, the pre-positioning of food assistance for 700,000 people and the maintenance of mobile health units and vaccination services.

Lyn Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for talking about what we have done so far. People in the communities in my constituency have spoken to me about the plight that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) has outlined today. My anxiety relates to the fact that we have all read in the newspapers about the escalating current need and how the money that has been pledged will simply not save those people. What more can we do in the House and outside to take the aid that is so desperately needed to those families and children?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that more needs to be done, and I shall come to her specific question shortly.
	It is crucial, however, that we continue to support the UN in the development of the humanitarian action plan to meet the immediate needs of those in difficult-to-reach communities. That plan, as well as what I have indicated already, includes the construction of 30 camps, the repair of vital damaged water supply systems and the installation of latrines, the establishment of temporary schools and the provision of heating and cooking facilities for 150,000 people in camps. Given the difficult access considerations, the plan also sets out the critical logistics requirements to reach affected populations.
	One of the things that hon. Members can continue to do to help the relief effort, as well as urging their constituents to continue to consider whether they can give support to the appeal made by the Disasters Emergency Committee, is to focus the attention of the House and, we hope, the media on the continuing needs of the people of Pakistan devastated by the earthquake. We need to continue to try to do everything that we can to keep international attention focused on the disaster.
	We have pledged 5 million to the United Nations flash appeal, but we are doing much more to support the UN. We have already provided about 10 million of direct and in-kind assistance to the UN, and we will provide further support in key sectors. Our support to the UN ranges from health, shelter, water and sanitation interventions, as well as supporting camp management, to vehicles, logistics, co-ordination and, importantly, helicopters.
	Our military has been providing crucial logistical assistance. The Ministry of Defence, as the House will know, has provided three Chinook helicopters and airlifted rations and water from Kabul, using a C130 aircraft, as well as 40 tonnes of vegetarian rations from Britain via NATO. The MOD has also helped to airlift two Puma helicopters from Spain to Pakistan in support of the International Committee of the Red Cross. About 120 medical evacuations have taken place on flights to and from the affected areas. We have also contributed 2 million for the NATO air bridge to transport priority relief items from UN warehouses.
	We have provided funding for a 75-man Royal Engineers light engineering unit to go to Pakistan next week. Among other tasks, the Government of Pakistan may ask the unit to repair bridges, clear roads and begin the rebuilding of schools, clinics, hospitals and other key critical facilities.
	The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) rightly highlighted in his intervention the need to continue to consider how we can improve the ability of the international system to respond to such crises. That has been one of the issues exercising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and is one of the reasons why we have argued during the past 12 months for the establishment of a central emergency revolving fund to provide quicker financial assistance to a variety of UN agencies. Instead of having to go around with the begging bowl, they will then have the assurance that, immediately a disaster strikes, they can get support on the ground where it is needed.

Jim Cousins: I am grateful for the great clarity and commitment with which my hon. Friend is speaking. However, will he not overlook the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) about the importance of changing trading relationships to enable the people of Pakistan and Kashmir to work their own way out of the terrible crisis that faces them?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is right to focus on trade. It is one of the issues that the Government of Pakistan have asked us to consider. We are looking at that and at a number of other things that we can do to provide support to the Government of Pakistan. He will recognise that the issues surrounding trade have to be discussed with the European Commission, but we are considering them and a number of other issues that I shall come to shortly.
	We are lobbying other donors to increase their support. At the European Union informal meeting of Development Ministers on 24 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development urged those present to respond generously. This week, he has written to his counterparts in all European Union countries to encourage them to do more to support relief needs. In particular, we have stressed the need for additional logistics support, especially to ensure that sufficient helicopters, alternative shelters as well as tents, field medical teams and support to water and sanitation are available. We are following up that letter with a series of telephone calls.
	I come to the longer-term needs, the issues of reconstruction referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins), and what else we can do to provide support. The House may be aware that the Earthquake Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Authority, chaired by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, has asked the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to lead a high-level needs assessment team to prepare an outline plan and funding assessment for long-term reconstruction needs. We expect that report to be available by mid-November.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting suggested, a donor conference is planned for 19 November in Islamabad to decide how the international community should support the Government of Pakistan in meeting the long-term reconstruction needs of their people. I shall represent the United Kingdom Government at that donor conference.
	The emergency relief phase of this humanitarian disaster will be unusually long. The long, harsh Himalayan winter has the potential to cause as much death and suffering as the earthquake itself. It will not be until the snows begin to melt in the spring that the full reconstruction phase can get under way. Nevertheless, there is a lot that we can do in the meantime to begin discussion around the planning of that reconstruction effort. That is why the donor conference on 19 November is taking place and why the UK will be represented.
	It is at times like these that countries can put aside their differences and work together to ease the suffering of their peoples. I was very pleased to hear of the agreement made on 30 October between India and Pakistan to open the line of control in both directions. On 7 November, families and relief items were able to cross on foot at one of the five points on the line of control. A further crossing point opened on 9 November. Although people require a permit to cross, Pakistani and Indian officials have been instructed to issue them quickly. I understand that the disturbances at the Nauseri crossing point on 7 November were from Pakistani Kashmiris who tried to cross without the correct permit. India is providing a contribution of more than 14 million to Pakistan for rebuilding, and I am sure that all Members will join me in sincerely hoping that both Governments can build on that co-operation and that a glimmer of hope can come out of these tragic circumstances.
	My hon. Friend deserves praise for bringing our attention to this issue and for giving us an opportunity to continue to consider the needs of people in the affected communities. We in the Department for International Development continue to focus closely on what else we can do to provide support to the affected communities in the relief phase given that many people are vulnerable to the quickly approaching harsh winter. We are continuing to look at the issue of long-term reconstruction and the additional assistance that we can provide.

Justine Greening: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan). Many of my constituents have family and friends who have been affected by this event. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will press to ensure that the reconstruction plan that is being worked up at the moment is adequate to meet the long-term challenges?

Gareth Thomas: One of the reasons for going to the donor conference next week is to consider exactly that issue and to see what further support we can provide.
	I again congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this issue to the attention of the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.